Bush explains his own motives for the immigration plan
: At a weekend retreat for House Republicans, the GOP Congressmen were tearing Karl Rove apart
over Bush’s spending and immigration policies. This passage is especially revealing as to Bush’s own thinking:
Many House critics of the Bush immigration plan said privately that the proposal was created to win Mr. Bush a larger share of the Hispanic vote in November and to mollify Mexican President Vicente Fox. Mr. Fox has supported relaxed U.S. immigration laws as a means to alleviate economic problems in Mexico.
[White House spokesman Trent] Duffy said the president delivered a passionate defense of his immigration plan, telling the Republican caucus that his policy is not a political ploy.
“He said he didn’t do it for politics [but] because that’s what he believes is good for the country,” Mr. Duffy said, adding that Mr. Bush drove his point home by saying, “I’m from Texas and I know this issue.”
Bush’s reported comment—and I think it is sincere—backs up a point I’ve made over and over, that he is not promoting this insane immigration scheme out of some cynical political calculus, but because he really believes in it
. Even scarier, he thinks he has some special understanding
of the issue, and so is deaf to opposing facts and arguments.
As was said in an earlier discussion, what explains Bush’s seemingly unaccountable actions is a combination of genuine belief, invincible ignorance, and messianism.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 07, 2004 08:24 PM | Send
Yes, and unfortunately when he says, “I’m from Texas, and I know this issue,” he’s quite right. He does know this issue - from the point of view of the slave-labor barons. What he seems congenitally unable to understand is that citizens who see their way of life, culture, and neighborhoods steadily being ruined by immigration greatly outnumber the barons. And unfortunately for the Bush dynasty, there are still such things as elections.
Also, what happened to the modesty and humility that Bush said would be a hallmark of his administration? Well, I guess he felt modest and humble in some areas, but when it comes to racial issues, he, like so many left-liberals and right-liberals, thinks he has a special connection to the Lord.
How much damage have these liberal epiphanies done to our civilization.
Let’s not forget GWB also recently said legal immigration numbers were too low, and we need to issue more green cards ! BTW; I don’t happen to think much of this immigration policy is being driven from the Karl Rove side of the fence. I think it has GWB written all over it.
I was listening to Rep. Tancredo interviewed on a Christian radio program this week. He spoke about a meeting between himself and some fellow Republican congressmen and Karl Rove. The congressman explained to Mr. Rove that their constituents were complaining in great numbers about the amnesty plan and that they couldn’t ignore this.
According to Congr. Tancredo, Mr. Rove’s response was to shout over them at every turn, and reiterate firmly that this is how it is, and this is how it’s going to be.
The arrogance and obliviousness this revealed was quite telling.
To tie this to another thread, Bush is a great example of the sincere, fanatical believer in the new religion - the de facto state church of the West - liberalism. To Bush, it simply does not matter what the majority of those who voted for him (the “little people”) want - he has seen the light. It is this absolute arrogance, this messianic devotion to a religion that is ultimately false, that makes Bush so very dangerous.
As much as I dread saying it, I might even consider voting for the cadaverous Mr. Kerry in order to be rid of this dangerous idiot. The only question remaining is which of the candidates is most devoted to the new religion. We know that Bush is. What about the Democrats?
Carl is correct in the sense that GWB is the main problem in the immigration debate. He is enthralled with Mexico; it’s become a policy fetish with NO rational basis. When I stated above that I believe Rove plays only a small part in GWB’s immigration policy I say it because the policy has fanatic written all over it ! Whatever we think of Rove; he’s a professional, and I’m sure he can read the poll numbers on how Americans want legal, and illegal immigration controlled. What’s coming out of the White House in the way of immigration policy looks like the scribblings of a 3 year child. The reason GWB needs to be defeated in the next election is because he will not let up on this “Mexican Thing”. Not now, not ever !
Messengers Hagan and Carl and Mr, Auster could not have said it better.
Now that we’re all in agreement…
Do we therefore put all our apples—and oranges—behind The Constitution Party…or begin to build our own Third Party? We need a good lawyer, lots of money and at least one leader…
Bush should be crushed in this election. Nothing less will do.
The fact that Bush was unopposed in the GOP may turn out not to help him much. He isn’t making much favorable news and Kerry is winning something every few nights. What news Bush does make has been negative, not least his immigration fanaticism (no other word for it).
Recently, I was eating lunch in a restaurant, and I heard a couple in the booth behind me talking about Bush’s amnesty. “This is going to cause us to be outnumbered by hispanics,” they were saying. This was causing Bush to drop in the polls even before the WMD flap.
The GOP cheerleaders are talking about “economic growth,” but news like that doesn’t affect average citizens like it used to. I predict that Bush will make some kind of gesture on “immigration amnesty” during the campaign even more extreme than he has so far.
“I predict that Bush will make some kind of gesture on “immigration amnesty” during the campaign even more extreme than he has so far.”
Then they should call the election off. How can you have an election when one of the two contenders belongs in a lunatic asylum?
I am going to stay within the Republican Party for now; and raise hell ! On the State level here in NH the party is strong. Of course with Bush on the National level, we find ourselves in serious trouble, again. With the defeat of the second George Bush perhaps the Republicans will “get it”. If they don’t get it; then perhaps I will move on, but, as Mr. Levin states: where to ???
We have such a White House fetish in this country, it’s pathetic. We even called the 2002 elections “mid-term”, even though they were just as “end-of-term” as this year’s races. I’m afraid this fetish is in full display here as well.
I wrote the presidency off over a year ago. Bush is a nut; every Democrat is a nut. Whaddya gonna do? What you are going to do is go after Congress. There are dozens of sober minds on the Hill, at least when it comes to invasion— excuse me, immigration—almost all of them in the GOP. And remember, the 2004 Bush “let-‘em-all-in” plan is still a pipe dream, while the 1964 Kennedy-family “let-almost-all-of-‘em-in” plan is law and has several decades of damage under its stained belt.
The Founding Fathers designed the House of Representatives to be the quickest and most direct path for popular displeasure, with much slower turnover for the Senate and presidential electors (both of which were at first chosen by state legislators, remember).
Ironically this system has been turned upside-down, with Representatives holding life fiefdoms and the Senate, of all places, serving as the tripwire.
Now look at the Senate— there are almost a dozen double-Donkey states with elections in 2004 and 2006, including three of the four largest. (Those three are inundated by immigrants legal and illegal, by the way, and hold over 120 representatives and electors.)
What would Dianne Feinstein (who’s already talking sense), Hillary Clinton, Bill Nelson, Herb Kohl, Maria Cantwell, Joseph Lieberman and Paul Sarbanes have to say about immigration in 2006 if Barbara Boxer, Charles Schumer, Bob Graham (or rather his replacement), Russ Feingold, Patty Murray, Christopher Dodd and Barbara Mikulski were to lose their seats in 2004 solely on the effects of their party’s folly— or perhaps duplicity— forty years earlier? (Heck, what would GOP candidates say in 2006 if that happened?)
The nice part of this plan is that it can be pulled off with no help, indeed even with the opposition, of the media and the GOP. The NRA, AARP and AIPAC are notorious for ending the careers of politicians who stepped on their toes, regardless of what the other party did. Making one party alone suffer big-time for 1964 would throw the Hill into turmoil and be a tremendous boost for the restrictionist caucus.
Who cares who lives at 1600?
I meant to say “strained belt” above, although “stained” somehow seems equally appropriate, especially in Sen. Kennedy’s case.
My “sympathies” to Mr. Hagan for deciding to stay in the (NH) GOP. The GOP is going to get walloped in November, and not just here in the West and not just for president. I expect that Bush’s growing unpopularity with his base and the way the Congressional Republicans (except for a handful of conservatives like Tancredo and Ron Paul) voted in lock step with Bush for three long years, that they too will go down with the ship. That means almost certainly losing the Senate and possibly even the House. Without an energized base (the Republican Party being outnumbered in National elections), the GOP is kaput.
Certainly, Mr. Hagan has every reason to stay in the GOP. I assume that his saying “I am going to stay in the Republican Party for now…” means he is going to work for (R) Congressional and (R) local candidates for office—yet not vote for Bush. But every sign I see does not bode well for anyone connected to the GOP:
1) the economy (worsening or not improving enough)
2) the War (an impossible situation with no exit strategy—continuing American casualties, the Shiites rising up against us and not enough NATO or EU troops to take the load off our shoulders)
3) the continued outsourcing of American jobs to India and other third world nations
4) the GOP’s and Bush’s push for amnesty for illegals
5) the continued aggressive national push by gay and lesbian pressure groups to legalize homosexual marriage and the unwillingness of many in the GOP (including Bush) to take it head on
I’m astonished by Mr. LeFevre’s report from Rep. Tancredo, that “Mr. Rove’s response was to shout over them at every turn, and reiterate firmly that this is how it is, and this is how it’s going to be.” The Washington Times article which I linked in the original blog entry said nothing like this; it left the impression that Rove had been chastened by the Congressmen’s anger. Since the whole purpose of these weekend retreats (or so I thought) is for the administration to get feedback from GOP Congressmen, Rove’s dictatorial stance toward them is amazing.
I think the term that several people in this thread have used for Bush—fanatic—is correct. And Rove’s response to the Congressmen clearly suggests that it is Rove the strategist who is following Bush the fanatic, rather than the other way around.
I don’t know why, but I’m truly shocked at the xenophobia here. I also don’t believe that anybody here really lives in our near a truly immigrant community. If you did you would see what I see, which is the amazing benefits that immigration brings to our communities. Here in NYC we have whole neighborhoods that have been brought back to greatness thanks to new immigrants over the last ten years.
Last time I checked we were an immigrant country and a free country, where anybody who wants to come and work and pay taxes was supposed to be welcome. And these immigrants work far harder in jobs that homegrown Americans feel are beneath them. THIS, along with our protections of individual rights is what makes this country so great.
On a more strategic note, China, India and the entire Muslim world have populations that are growing at a far faster rate than ours. If we are to remain competitive in the world, and are to remain the main military power in the world, we need to keep our population growing. Our natural born population has a birthrate slightly lower than replenishment. It is because of our immigrants and their higher birthrate that we have positive population growth. Where else are we going to get the workers for the low-skill low value jobs that some people complain we send overseas? Where else will we get the large numbers of people to serve in the military in future years when these other powers become much more dangerous?
The argument that they mostly become democrats is lame. If you don’t want immigrants to be dems, then get off your self-righteous butts and go out and recruit these people to the party! They mostly have a small businessman’s mentality. It is an easy sell if you don’t let them think republicans hate them. In NYC, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Bloomberg and George Pataki get almost half the hispanic vote now. Now, that may not be significant in New Hampshire, but in NYC that is a really big deal.
We need a complete overhaul of our immigration policy, where we allow at least double the numbers of legal immigrants to come in annually. We need to give priority to people who will work and have special skills and can support themselves and their families, and get rid of the massive underground economy in this country. Dems want the priority going to future welfare cases and beneficiaries of government largesse. THIS is what needs to change. We need to import the most productive the world has to offer. This is what will keep us the world’s number one super power for future generations.
Mr. Hornak eloquently exemplifies the mainstream Republican view of human beings as economic units rather than as cultural, even—dare I say it?—spiritual beings.
He writes, “Here in NYC we have whole neighborhoods that have been brought back to greatness thanks to new immigrants over the last ten years.” Unless Mr. Hornak actually grew up in one of those old New York neighborhoods (as I did, by the way) it is at best insensate of him to be so enthused over the eradication of, in essence, people’s hometowns, for the sake of mere polyglot bustle. The vibrancy which Mexican immigrants bring to my neighborhood here in hideous Southern California consists chiefly of loud music and graffiti. But perhaps Mr. Hornak cares mostly about the exotic new restaurants our oh-so-necessary invaders bring. Well, he’s right. Restaurant-hopping is ever so much more exciting than it used to be.
However, his notion that most new immigrants are go-getter small businessmen would appear to be almost pitifully naïve, unless he can explain why the welfare offices are crammed with these go-getter small businessmen, or why one of the two local hospitals here was plunged into bankruptcy by these same go-getter small businessmen flooding its ER and never paying.
And then he asks, “Where else will we get the large numbers of people to serve in the military in future years…?” Well, I don’t wish to be rude, but this is so close to imbecilic that it makes me feel that very little of this Chamber of Commerce cant is after all even worth arguing with. Yes, a mercenary army with no ties to American society - what more could a little emperor hope for?
I think we all agree that GWB has to be defeated in November. I really don’t care which Democrat is elected. If the House and Senate are still controlled by the Republicans they will block any off the wall legislation the Democrats come up with, including amnesty.
I will be writing in Tom Tancredo’s name for President. If Judge Roy Moore runs for President that will drain off more votes from Bush. I just hope that Ralph Nader doesn’t decide to run pulling votes from Democrats like he did in 2000.
Bush must be defeated, just think of the further damage he can do on immigration if he is re-elected, four more years of this? We have to boot these open border fanatics out of office whatever the nexus of their beliefs! High and low they must go!
I just have a few words for the GOP, ITS’THE AMNESTY STUPID?
Shrewsbury is ever so right: “Yes, a mercenary army with no ties to American society - what more could a little emperor hope for?”
Anyone watching Tim Russert’s interview of Bush this morning should have been struck by two things. First, there was, of course, no mention of the immigration topic whatsoever. And, second, Bush constantly referred to “leading the world”, only referring to “this country” tangentially. Not since Alexander, so-called “the Great”, has such a megalomaniac had such devestating military power arrayed behind him to indulge in his fantasies. And, yes, this includes AH and Uncle Joe.
I have been reluctant to entertain the idea that George “bring us more peons” Bush was in favor of immigration “on principle” but I am beginning to think I was wrong. Of course, it enables him to combine liberal posturing with pandering to the sweatshop business mentality.
As a New Yorker, I am fairly sure that Mr. Hornak’s enthusiasm for immigration represents a distinctly minority view among native-born whites (and possibly an even smaller minority among native-born blacks!) Borjas and others have frequently demonstrated that even from a purely economic point of view immigration is a negative factor. Personally, I fail to see the need or desirability of a futile competition with China and India to overpopulate our country.
This comment from Bush’s interview this morning is worth reproducing in this thread. More legionnaires are needed, it seems, to turn the world into America.
“And, Tim, as you can tell, I’ve got a foreign policy that is one that believes America has a responsibility in this world to lead, a responsibility to lead in the war against terror, a responsibility to speak clearly about the threats that we all face, a responsibility to promote freedom, to free people from the clutches of barbaric people such as Saddam Hussein who tortured, mutilated there were mass graves that we have found a responsibility to fight AIDS, the pandemic of AIDS, and to feed the hungry. We have a responsibility. To me that is history’s call to America. I accept the call and will continue to lead in that direction… .
“See, I know exactly where I want to lead. I want to lead us I want to lead this world toward more peace and freedom. I want to lead this great country to work with others to change the world in positive ways, particularly as we fight the war on terror, and we got changing times here in America, too… . [I want to] use American power in a way to make the world a better place, and who understands that the true strength of this country is the hearts and souls of the American citizens, who understands times are changing and how best to have policy reflect those times.” The transcript is available at americanpatrol.com and, I assume, nbc’s website.
When I hear people like Mr. Hornak refer to “revitalization” brought about by immigrants, I believe it is just a hidden code for saying that they are better than the blacks. As a New Yorker, I hear this all the time from people on both sides of the political spectrum. What was once a “scary” (read black) neighborhood is now “revitalized.” This is also true of business people who are now thrilled to be able to hire immigrants rather than native-born blacks. It would be refreshing and helpful if people stopped speaking in euphemisms.
To answer Mr. Levine I do indeed plan to stay in the NH Republican Party for many reasons. On the State level we are fighting to keep the State: income tax, sales tax, and capital gains tax free. We have a new Charter school system that is starting up, and we have a very good chance of getting more rational controls on the abortion on demand culture. Yet, I’m well aware that the National Party is in deep trouble, and I do indeed want Bush defeated in November, and the Republicans to keep the House. Until I sense a third Party movement has traction, and runs on the National Question; I find it better to fight where I stand. Most of the Republican base is with us on the immigration issue. As others have stated in this thread, there are good Republicans in the House that are with us on the immigration issue. I have always felt, and I do agree with others here; that this immigration policy is being driven from the top down; by GWB. The trick here is to get GWB out of office; and show that he was fired because of his stand on immigration. I think GWB will lose; but I doubt the press, and the powers that be will allow us to stick the immigration spin on his defeat, which is the shame of it. But still; his fetish on the Mexican question is so strong and singular that he must be defeated if for nothing else than to keep things from going bad to worse.
There is something we can do right now to show our opposition to Bush’s amnesty plan and to the entire elitist plan to de facto, if not de jure dismantle the borders. Signatures are being gathered in California for an inititive that would make federal law enforceable in the state, thus prohibiting driver licenses to illegals, in-state tuition, etc. The campaign is going well, but they need support. Their website is www.save187.com. It looks like a similar initiative will be introduced in Colorado by Tom Tancredo and another in Nevada by yet another group. If several such initiatives are on the ballot in Novemeber in several states it will send a clear message to Bush, Rove and the open-border gang that the public is simply not a passive herd that can be pushed from here to there on this issue.
In responce to Glynn Arizonia is also looking to put an initiative on the ballot concerning public funds going to illegals. let us also not forget the Bush betrayal on AA in the Michigan case ! We may soon have an initiative in Michigan to reverse the U.S. Supreme court ruling there. These State initiatives are indeed a very important way to get our points across.
I take what Mr. Hornak says about our immigration troubles about as seriously as I would take them if they came from the thoughts of Paris Hilton: not very. If we follow his logic that immigrants are just doing the jobs that Americans will not do; and doing them better and with more energy than Americans; then Mr hornak should have no problem following that logic to its end: which would be the replacement of all native born Americans with immigrants ! Oh, wait, I see he wants to at least double the number of legal immigrants every year. So perhaps that is what he meant all along.
We are not a nation of immigrants; most of us were born here. When Rome fell, most of its military was non-Roman. Besides, mercenaries are notoriously undependable. Most people know our immigration policy has absolutely nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with politics; this fact makes immigration advocates appear as cultists, Larouchies, with whom no rational discussion can occur.
It is like talking with a zombie: we are a nation of immigrants, we are a nation of immigrants…. And? Since immirouchies feel so guilty, why don’t they repent of their supposed selfishness and volunteer to trade places with anyone that wants to immigrate to the U.S.? The immmigration supporters that can think are neurotic: they think they are not only selfish but also hypocrites.
Thanks to Paul for posting the exerpts from the President’s Tim Russert interview. Over and over again, recently at the State of the Union Address, Bush talks about his need to lead the world and where he needs to lead it to, which is to a state of being, namely “freedom.”
Therein lies perhaps, part of an explanation for his finaticism and zealousness when it comes to the re-population program. Getting the masses to pour across our border transforms them- into this state of freedom.
He is, it seems to me, driven by something like a religious, utopian ideology. To Mr. Bush, we are the choosen nation, and we are called upon by a higher power to perform “a mission” to tranform all humanity into this state. And he can get the job done internally, right here, without a war, by just opening the borders.
I once read an excellent biography of the aboltionist John Brown, which powerfully conveyed a sense of the mission he was driven by.
No sacrifice was too great, including his son’s life and his own, if it quickened the day. In our case, the abolitionist is our President and the offending doctrine, national soverignty. Instead of a slave population to be freed, he has the entire global population as his subject, and apparently first to be freed are, the Mexicans.
Am I reaching too far here, or is there a religious( or at least utopian) component to his immigration finaticism?
John Brown was an evangelical Protestant. Bush, though a member of the Methodist church, belongs to an evangelical branch of it, I believe.
There is a range of evangelicals. I was just reading a book about nineteenth century America and the Whig party. Many evangelicals were Whigs, who believed in personal transformation, moral self-improvement in the context of upward mobility, and were conservative. Other evangelicals were utopian world transformers, like Brown.
“…I’m truly shocked at the xenophobia here. I also don’t believe that anybody here really lives in or near a truly immigrant community.”
Speak for yourself, buddy. In my “truly immigrant neighborhood” the Russian Jews who arrived in the late ’80s and early ’90s now play the role of Mayflower descendants.
OK, my apartment complex is no longer the druggie-infested hellhole I’m advised it was not long before I moved in nine years ago. But I’ve never been able to buy anything after midnight since three teenage boys killed three people while robbing the local convenience outlet. (Those boys were Hmong, born in Laos, or perhaps some Thai camp.)
And I can no longer recycle with ease, since my neighbors refused to distinguish between the trash and recyclables Dumpsters and they took one away. Really, how are we improved by people who can’t tell green from blue and read simple instructions in English?
(But we didn’t have all-night stores nor recycling bins in Andy Griffith’s America, either, so maybe they really are bringing back the “good ol’ days”!)
Funny, how those “revitalized” business districts nearby, mostly Asian and Latin, can run up good numbers on the cash register tape but can’t be bothered to toss a few cents toward putting up a presentable storefront. (By the way, the most popular logo motif in the Latin areas is that of two cocks fighting, complete with spurs. Come on, do we really want imported cockfighters threatening the livelihood of our legal Indian casinos?)
Right across the river is the country’s largest Somali neighborhood. It appears safe enough at night, but it is very eerie to drive through it in the dark of December and see block after block with nary a Christmas light.
That brings up xenophobia. My state has the honor of having the second English-speaking legislature (after the UK’s Parliament) to criminalize female circumcision. Just what in the works of William Pierce and David Duke could be more xenophobic than doing that?
We got along fine for hundreds of years without such a silly statute polluting the books. But evidently it wasn’t covered under child abuse laws as the Somalis didn’t consider it abuse, but an act of love. (They may know something we don’t— their women are noticeably less angry than ours.)
No Christmas lights. No circumcision. They won’t carry on our traditions and they can’t carry on theirs. Why did we invite them here?
They can carry on all their traditions except female circumcision. They’re here for a better life.
John Brown … George W. Bush … what a comparison to be making!
One man is so fanatically opposed to chattel slavery that he sacrifices even his own family members, and ultimately his own life, to end a practice he regarded as an egregious wrong. Say what you will about Mr. Brown, or his methods, he gave his life for a cause he believed in.
Comes now Mr. Bush, born into a family of privilige, rich and spoiled, who through family connections finds a way out of fighting in Vietnam, was quite possibly AWOL from his Guard unit in ‘72-‘73, a mediocre student, who becomes governor and then President because he’s the son of a former President.
His latest big gov’t conservative, (and probably unconstitutional, if that matters,) prescription drugs plan plainly benefits an industry in which a great deal of his family’s wealth is tied up. Need we recall that Bush Sr. was a board member of Ely Lilly? His amnesty plan benefits big business, and he is, after all, a product of big business and very much beholden to them.
What sacrifice is President Bush making for all these things he believes in? John Brown lost his life; the most Bush stands to lose is reelection, for which we can earnestly hope.
If Bush lost his re-election over his fanatical devotion to open immigration, that would be for him a self-sacrifice to principle equivalent in importance to John Brown’s sacrifice of his life.
j.hagan states his case eloquently for staying in the NH GOP for a variety of excellent reasons, and I applaud him for that. I would probably do the same, if I lived in NH. By the way, a Alan Levine is also writing in this thread. My last name is Levin, but I assume when you referred to me as “Mr. Levine”, you (Mr. Hagan) were referring to ME, not Alan Levine.
Mr. Hagan is also correct in part of his statement that “the (Bush) immigration policy is driven from the top down” and “the trick IS to get Bush and his minions out of office while leaving many strong anti-immigration Republican congressmen IN the House”. The Bushes and Powells and Karl Roves and Minetas of this Administration need to be replaced. The part Mr. Hagan is not correct about, in my humble opinion, is the premise that there are more than a handful of GOP congressmen who are “strong on immigration”. Tancredo and Paul are the only ones I can think of. In the Senate, Larry Craig? Haven’t heard much from him in years. When he was running, I used to think he was a staunch traditional conservative. George Nethercutt in Washington State? I haven’t heard much from him, either. I think most of the ‘94 Conservative Revolution House members have neem pretty well castrated or “silenced” for fear of stepping of Bush’s toes. Perhaps j.hagan is correct and that is all changing now, with Bush’s numbers getting dropping so low. However, if we learned anything about the GOP Congress over the past three years, it is that they stayed solidly behind Bush except for a few who were considered “black sheep”, like Tancredo. I do not think there will be a wholesale revolt against Bush this year among Republican congressmen. I also don’t believe a Kerry win will make future GOP congressmen any more “conservative” or anti-immigration. I do agree with Mr. Hagan that there will be an even bigger grass roots movement—perhaps in the form of a Third Party—to secure our Southern border.
Mr. Auster’s statement is, in a subtle way, almost harsher than mine!
I also suggest that anyone who hasn’t seen the clip of the press conference exchange between the President and Craig Nelson on immigration do so. It really shows either the disingenuousness or outright ignorance of the man in the Oval Office:
Mr. Hornak’s suggestion of opening our borders to bring in double the number of current immigrants, legal and illegal, makes me think of what the Romans did by bringing in Goths and other assorted barbarians into the Roman Army which (according to famed Catholic historian, Hilaire Belloc in his “Europe and the Faith”) led to the Empire’s “fall”. I for one do not believe that we need so many millions of people brought into the U.S. and many of them would eventually be made part of our armed forces. Could all of them be counted on to fight with allegiance to this country?
What he suggests attempts to shroud an obvious pro-business attempt to bring in cheap labor or at the very least, by bringing these millions of the uneducated in would bring down wages of current Americans. The old canard that Americans (whites and other non-Hispanics) would not work in the fields reminds me of some story I remember in the 60s and 70s—during the Caesar Chavez-led farmworker strikes. That is, that machines had been invented to do the work of harvesting many of the crops. I recall how those machines had America labor pretty worried. I remember Chavez’s group fearmongering by saying, “Your lettuce will cost you $5 a head if you get rid of us for machines”. Whatever happened to those machines? Perhaps someone can tell me.
Anyway, I made the decision years ago—in spite of my using a head of lettuce a day for my salads—that I would gladly (though growling along the way) pay $4 or $5 a head for lettuce IF it meant deportation of illegal aliens in my state. The savings to the State and other obvious benefits (hospitals and schools could again thrive, a drop in crime) would be phenomenal. I have since come around to the idea of the old Bracero Program of the ’50s—but ONLY if it would not allow the families of migrant (temporary) workers to follow them! The thing that scares me the most is if we embrace even a variant of Bush’s plan, there would be nothing stated in such a law about anchor babies, illegal families of migrant workers coming here to live, etc. THAT WOULD BE OR COULD BE PROPERLY ENFORCED. Thus, we would end up with what we have today.
Let me answer a few of the statements made my Mr. Hornak: “Here in NYC we have whole neighborhoods that have been brought back to greatness thanks to new immigrants over the last ten years.” How did they bring the neighborhoods back to greatness? It often happens that when one group moves en masse into a neighborhood, other groups get the message and move out into a neighborhood in which their ethnic group is dominant. People self-segregate. Thus, if the old group was given to drugs, crime, welfare, etc., and moved out, then the problem just shifted somewhere else and no net gain has been achieved for America as a whole. Instead, if the immigrants did such great social work, job creating, and example-setting that they transformed the old members of the neighborhood into stable, productive citizens, then my hat is off to them. Please document if so.
“Last time I checked we were an immigrant country and a free country, where anybody who wants to come and work and pay taxes was supposed to be welcome.” This statement cannot be reconciled to ANY restriction on total immigration numbers. If 300 million Chinese wanted to move here and work hard and pay taxes and be good citizens, we would have to let them do so, and English would be a minority language overnight, among other changes. Later you recommend doubling the immigration quota, while being selective in only allowing productive immigrants. Why only double? You statement above is “anybody who wants to come and work and pay taxes.”
“And these immigrants work far harder in jobs that homegrown Americans feel are beneath them.” You seem to be talking about unskilled labor here, i.e. low-paying jobs. You might want to consider that, in a country with a very progressive tax system in which the upper 5% pay about 50% of all personal income taxes, even an American who is employed for the median income is NOT paying his share of taxes. Thus, allowing entry to an immigrant who is merely willing to work hard, but who will not be above the median income level any time soon, is a net economic loss. Yet your concluding statement is:
“We need a complete overhaul of our immigration policy, where we allow at least double the numbers of legal immigrants to come in annually. We need to give priority to people who will work and have special skills and can support themselves and their families, and get rid of the massive underground economy in this country. Dems want the priority going to future welfare cases and beneficiaries of government largesse. THIS is what needs to change. We need to import the most productive the world has to offer.”
First, this kind of talk cannot be reconciled with the old canard about “jobs that Americans think are beneath them.” You need to get your arguments straight so that they are not self-contradictory. Second, any attempt to limit immigration to those who are likely to be above the median income level in the first generation would be met with resistance at least as massive as anything ever proposed on this board. Business wants cheap labor, liberal saps want to prove to themselves how compassionate they are by bringing in the dregs of the earth, and a really high standard for English proficiency, education, special skills, etc., would end up being a de facto ethnic bias. Given that the Left makes no distinction between accidentally disproportionate racial disparities and de jure racial discrimination, you would no doubt find yourself the target of the “xenophobia” epithet that you so thoughtlessly throw around yourself.
But who gets to decide what traditions will stay? The voters, and if the voters want female circumcision, they are going to have it, just as they have male circumcision (which I am neutral on), abortion, and Islamic traditions. This is key. Because the change takes place relatively slowly, people don’t notice it until it’s too late; the problem is left to later generations. If the voters that believe in one awful practice ally with voters of another awful practice (as they do in the Democratic party), we end up in the present situation where, for example, there is rampant abortion, anti-Semitism, anti-Christianity, anti-white bigotry, violent crime, intolerance, multiculturalism, emotional inability to value one’s traditions, etc.
Whereas if the traditions as existed before the 1960’s had been preserved, we would have none of most of the above and a little of one or two others, which we could be working on TOGETHER. Every culture has imperfections, which is one reason it is best to add cultures in only an extremely careful, nondisruptive way.
It is ill-mannered to call people names such as xenophobic, and is no more useful than calling people on the other side of the issue xenophobe-phobic. “You are X.” “Am not.” “Are too.”
Besides, I owe no one, except God and my family, an explanation for what I believe. I am providing this in an effort to reveal to others the lies and empty slogans that the brainwashed have faith in. I am trying to show that there is value in what I believe so that they will help me to protect my values and their values. I am not using brainwashed as a pejorative; the apathy over mass immigration is something that has been done TO many people. I wish to ally with those people.
I give little value to what non-Americans want. I have enough things right here at home to deal with.
The hypocrites could do a great deal for those non-Americans by switching places with them or sending them checks instead of stealing from other Americans and disrupting the culture of Americans that value their culture; but no, you see, here we have arrived at the root of the problem. There is a mass neurosis at work in America. Some people feel guilty about what they have and feel hypocritical (because they do nothing about their feeling and tell everyone but themselves that the ends do not justify the means), so they steal from others (tax) and displace the cultures of others in an attempt to deal with their neurosis instead of doing something about their neurosis ON THEIR OWN.
Mr. Homack’s finally brought the “do jobs Americans won’t do” argument full circle and suggested our military will soon need to be filled with newcomers, because that’s one more manual job Americans won’t do.
And now we’ve really arrived at the end of the Republic.
The army today is smaller and more powerful than ever before. The WWII military was many times larger in a country with 90mm people. I don’t think we need hoards of foreigners to fill the ranks.
I will somehow attempt to respond to the multitude of attacks on my opinions all at once.
First, many of you seem to think I shouldn’t be taken seriously for my pro-immigrant stance. Particularly my assertion that we need to keep our population growing, instead of declining like in Europe, to remain the dominant political and military power in the world. I was attacked with comparisons to the Roman empire and how Rome fell. Who shouldn’t be taken seriously here? This is not ancient Rome, in case you didn’t notice. These alarmist comparisons to ancient societies don’t stand as complete arguments against a policy plan for 21st century America. And, for all you English as a first language people, I never made the claim that we should import people to fight. I was talking in the context of population growth and future generations.
For all you “we are a country of native born people” types, I’m sorry to inform you that this argument works both ways. The children of the people I would like to see come here will also be native born Americans, just as you, your parents or grandparents were most likely born to immigrants.
Lastly, for the crowd that thinks my arguments are flawed because I touched on both skilled and unskilled immigrants, let me clarify. Our immigration policy as it stands is flawed. We give preference to people who are the grandparents of current immigrants over 30 year old doctors and engineers who have a lifetime ahead of them to be a productive part of society. This needs to be changed. This is why gov’t assistance offices are overburdened with immigrants. This is the Dem’s way of importing Dem voters. If you want to fix our first immigration problem, this is it. We have a bad policy from the start. But having a Ph.D. isn’t the only way to demonstrate having a skill. Farm work is a skill, just not one that pays very much.
Yes, there is an economic component for this argument. But it’s not just how much we pay for lettuce. It’s how much we pay for everything, and where everything is made. We can export customer service centers to India, or we can bring more people here and keep the money in our hands. Of course, this argument will never be good for those of you who just don’t want more Indians in America. There is also a positive to helping other countries like India develop. But that is for another time.
Most people who come here come to work or to be with family. Right now we give preference to people who want to be with family. I want to give preference to people who want to work. We currently allow approximately one million immigrants in legally per year. But we have about twice that coming in. We should double our number, making it easier for those to come who want to work - whether it be high wage, high skill work or low skill farm work.
Yes, this presents challenges. But the challenges are great no matter which course we choose. This is the more sound approach. Because if you think we can stop illegal immigration, even if we could devote billions to guarding our almost endless borders, then you are being totally unrealistic. I’m disappointed in my conservative brethren, who can usually recognize a flawed policy that must be gotten rid of. To many tax cheats - obviously we are overtaxing. To much crime - arm the people. To many illegal immigrants - then it stands to reason that we need a better policy that works for the immigrants and that builds America for the future. And yes, this includes all the cultural benefits that come from these other cultures.
And P.S. this is not an open immigration policy. So arguments about 300 million Chinese don’t wash.
It’s very easy to solve illegal immigration. Provide incentives—bounties—for local law enforcement. And permit civil forfeiture of illegal immigration employing businesses. It would end overnight after a few Wal-Marts get seized by the feds. There is a magnet here, and that magnet is the complete lack of consequenes to illegals and their employers once they make it to the interior.
Releavnt histoircal analogies to an immigrant-overrun, morally sapped empire are quite apt, especially when that empire was once on top of the world until it lost its moral fiber.
Sure roach, that will be easy and cheap, right? And of course there will be no infringement of civil liberties here. Give me a break. I love you armchair problem solvers who think these things are so easy.
Reality check: most illegals work for small businesses, as do most Americans. And if you think that the American people will stand for a restaurant being seized because they employ an illegal dishwasher, think again.
Now, a little math. If we have 10M illegal immigrants here and offer only a $1000 bounty, that would be a $10B payout. And $1000 each would be cheap. Not an affordable or realistic solution. Let’s not even start a discussion of what would have to be done to weed out the illegals from the population at large. Oh, but in your utopian solution I’m sure they would be easy to spot.
And historical analogies of ancient, dissimilar societies might be fun, but are not relevant.
Then explain “Operation Wetback” or our recent and successful crackdown on Pakistani illegals.
There are dynamic effects; aliens will self-deport as their cousins, bosses, brothers, and childrens are sent home. Businesses will not wait to get seized, they’ll fire their employees first.
Finally, we should get rid of EOIR and all of the other lengthy, expensive processes in place to delay deportation. I suppose someone will winge about that, but that’s life isn’t it. Bush had the political capital to do this, but he didn’t. After the next terrorist attack, the next president will as well and the people will be more livid.
Sorry for that mix-up David Levin. I agree with you that the U.S. House & Senate has very few leaders on the immigration issue. I would think that after GWB is possibly bounced out of office on his ear the GOP would get the message that its (base) wants change on the immigration issue, and would follow that harsh message !
Mr. Hornak talks about America keeping up its Superpower status. How for the U.S.to remain a great Nation we need to import millions upon millions of immigrants to keep our National greatness intact; yet we can’t control our borders. Operation Wetback puts the lie to that ! The ONLY reason we are being invaded is because the elite has allowed us to be invaded. If the will of the citizens was being followed; there would be NO invasion. People like Mr.Hornak WANT the invasion; and he’s projecting that desire into the political debate; telling us the invasion can’t be stopped, so lay back, get raped of your culture, money, and safety, and enjoy it, because Mr. Hornak says a Nation that cured polio, put a Man on the Moon, and defeated Nazi Germany and Japan can’t control their own borders; what rubbish !!!
I’d like to second the remarks of Clark Coleman and P. Murgos in particular. To Mr. Coleman’s point about self-segregation and “shifting around the problem,” I would add the point that native-born middle-class law-abiding people, not just slum dwellers, have been fleeiing immigrant areas — indeed this is true of the whole state of California. One might also mention the damage wetbacks have been inflicting while in transit in Arizona.
Some people above have mentioned “female circumcision.” It should be noted that this is a highly misleading euphemism for clitoridectomy, a serious mutilation, which the removal of a man’s foreskin is not. I believe that this euphemism was in fact deliberately created, possibly out of Victorian squeamishness, but more likely to obscure just how horrible this African custom really is.
Thanks to Mr. Hornak for carrying on a polite conversation. I will address a few of his replies: “For all you ‘we are a country of native born people’ types, I’m sorry to inform you that this argument works both ways. The children of the people I would like to see come here will also be native born Americans, just as you, your parents or grandparents were most likely born to immigrants.” My immigrant ancestors in the 1840s were allowed to come here because: (1) America did not have a very well thought out immigration policy at the time, and enforcement was left up to the states; serious debate about what policy was best for America did not really begin until about the 1840s, and (2) we were a greatly open-land country after the Louisiana Purchase. With zero immigration, I am not sure when we ever would have filled up all the land we had to the point where it would all have been productively farmed, ranched, etc. Those reasons don’t bear much resemblance to today. (BTW, the Mexican government realized they did not have enough people to populate their Texas territory, so they invited in Anglos. How did that immigration policy work out? Think we could learn any lessons from it?)
“Particularly my assertion that we need to keep our population growing, instead of declining like in Europe, to remain the dominant political and military power in the world.” Is this the fallacy of the excluded middle? Why are our choices between (A) tremendous growth, and (B) decline ? Currently, we take in about 1 million legal and 500,000 illegal immigrants each year. It has been estimated that 300,000 legal and zero illegal would leave us at a steady population. The native-born population is at replacement birth rates, NOT the sub-replacement birth rates found in Europe today. About 300,000 emigrate out of the USA yearly; replacing them with 300,000 highly educated, Westernized, English speaking immigrants should be a reasonable goal. Why 2 million instead of our current 1 million, or 300,000? Are you aware that the US Census Bureau projects the population of the USA will be 450 million in the year 2050, even though the native population is at the replacement level in birth rates? Can you demonstrate a need for the USA to go from 270 million to 450 million? What will be the population in 2050 if we double the legal immigration quotas, as you recommend? 600 million? Ever hear of urban sprawl, traffic jams, pollution, declining underground aquifers, increased crime as urban areas grow, etc.? I was born in an America with less than 150 million people, and it was a great country, yet you tell me 270 million is not enough?
“And P.S. this is not an open immigration policy. So arguments about 300 million Chinese don’t wash.” I was just carrying your opening statement to its logical conclusion. If “Last time I checked we were an immigrant country and a free country, where anybody who wants to come and work and pay taxes was supposed to be welcome” is a true statement of your position, then what shall we say about 300 million Chinese, all of whom have tight families and a good work ethic, who want to come here? Perhaps you don’t espouse an open immigration plan, but then you need to revise your own statement and tell us exactly why you want to turn away hard-working people who have tight families, low crime rates, and don’t go on welfare very often. Once you explain why they should be permitted only in very much smaller numbers than 300,000,000, then perhaps we can reach some common ground. You might find that we on this board have similar reasons for our positions.
While you are at it, you might want to answer my point about persons below the median income not paying enough in taxes to pay their own way. Picture a Mexican family of 4, both parents working a total of 2.5 jobs in order to pull in $30,000 per year, with their two kids getting a bilingual education, after-school program, etc., all at a cost of about $10,000 per child. I submit that they don’t pay $20,000 per year in taxes, and we have not begun to talk about other expenses besides schools. It has been reliably estimated that 10% of the cost of a $1 head of lettuce is field labor cost. If we had to pay Americans double the wages of these Mexicans, it would make the head of lettuce cost $1.10 to $1.15 instead of $1. Compare that to the school and other costs mentioned.
People that forget history are doomed to repeat it. The Cambodians murdered about a third of their own race for reasons that bear study. It isn’t rational to stop studying it because, for example, Germany, Argentina, and Africa are not Cambodia.
There is no complete argument against anything unless one is invoking religious beliefs. Immigration policy is not based on religious beliefs. Moreover, most mass-immigrationists say they believe in freedom of religion.
If one imports other cultures, those other cultures are going to fight to protect their cultures, not mine. I’m sure not going to get protection from the usual mass-immigrationists.
All the moralists need do to gain some credibility is to say they work hard, scrimp, and save so they can send checks to non-Americans and they don’t care about their culture and they will not impose their houseguests on their neighbors. But of course they will do none of those things.
I don’t want to remain the dominant political and military power if it means giving up my culture and country. The purpose of a political and military system is to protect oneself. Culture and self are inseparable. Alliances and self-sacrifice are how countries protect themselves.
Perhaps the most critical point in this discussion, far more important than economic issues, is touched upon by Mr. Hornak here:
“The argument that they mostly become democrats is lame. If you don’t want immigrants to be dems, then get off your self-righteous butts and go out and recruit these people to the party! They mostly have a small businessman’s mentality. It is an easy sell if you don’t let them think republicans hate them. In NYC, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Bloomberg and George Pataki get almost half the hispanic vote now.”
The crucial point that immigration advocates do not understand is that Western civilization is (or used to be) very distinct from all others in one key respect: the triumph of individual rights (a.k.a. “equality before the law”) over group rights, clannishness, tribalism, caste systems, etc., which dominate the rest of the world. The modern Democratic Party is a threat to the future of Western Civilization, because it favors group rights and inequality before the law. It seeks to build a majority by keeping each minority group in a group-conscious state of mind and appealing to them in that state via promises of special treatments, handouts, etc. They are fully supportive of “multiculturalism” in its most pernicious forms.
The reason that most immigrants gravitate to the Democrats is because they hear a direct appeal to their tribal interests, rather than simply an argument about what is best for the whole country. If you think that simply working hard for their votes will change this, you have no clue about what is going on in national politics today. You cite New York pseudo-Republicans who have totally abandoned Western ideals, kow-towed continuously to ethnic groups to get their votes, and as a result got “almost half” of the Hispanic vote! Whoopee! “Almost half” means that all of the immigration into New York is still a net loss, even after the Republicans have moved very far leftward. GWB was supposed to have a big appeal among Hispanics; he kow-tows to them non-stop, and got 35% of their votes in the 2000 election. Get the picture yet?
Our arguments should not be directed to those that talk about immigration in terms (economic, military, political) other than protecting what I will refer to here as social values: culture, tradition, race, and country. They are lost. Like the anti-Semite in the movie American History, they cannot be reasoned with. They like to think another person’s (and even their own) particular social values are illegitimate and worth sacrificing. Lost ones, like the Edward Norton character, have to find their own way on these basic, perhaps primitive issues. So don’t argue with the idea of convincing them.
Instead, the lost ones provide an opportunity to help those who are trying to understand the issues and those who are looking for support. I suppose what I am trying to say is think of those looking on, not the lost one wandering around looking merely for the stimulation of arguing.
Perhaps one way to identify the lost ones early on is when they subordinate social values to other concerns such as economics, military or political power, morality, religion etc.
P Murgos brings up the concept of the lost one. Another way of looking at it is the deracinated ones. The deracinated, who are almost always white, have lost a sense of who they are, and what it means being who they are. Some people would say a state of deracination is a worthy goal, and perhaps in a perfect world that would be so; but in this world; at this time, being deracinated is a deadly mistake. As Blacks an Asians gain control of the culture, along with the governent made-up hispanic class; ONLY Whites stand alone without a group idenity. This deracination by Whites will lead to their abuse in the short term as we see, and in the long term, without this sense of self, it will lead to their destuction and domination by others who group together based on race and group idenity. People like Mr. Hornak would bury us, and himself, in a third world tidal wave and tell, us all is well, all is well ! Yet, he could not name a place on Earth where such a replacement of one people by another has ever worked ! That is the true madness of the lost ones.
A few thoughts:
(1) The term “female circumcision,” is, in my opinion, a misnomer, and serves to confuse the issue. In general, what people are referring to is not actual circumcision, that is, the removal of the clitoral foreskin or prepuce (which I do not have a per se problem with), but clitorectomy, or removal of the clitoris. Calling this “circumcision” is roughly equivalent to calling what Lorena Bobbit did to her husband “circumcision.”
(2) Steve Sailer (isteve.com) suggetss that Bush’s tone-deafness on the immigrant issue is partly due to the fact that immigration does not pose as much of a problem in Texas as in other states (say, California) because Texas has large amounts of uniform land, and so increased competition for land is less likely to force the native population from paradise into a Hell-hole.
One error in the mass-immigrationist thinking is the failure to pay attention to facts. Cambodians murdered people of their own race, culture, and religion based on some propositions. They tried to eliminate difference from their ideal. Still, the mass-immigrationists think that if you somehow eliminate particular races, cultures, and religions, there will no longer be sufficient reasons to behave criminally. They don’t realize that people will always be different.
The Cambodians believed in eliminating differences immediately; and the only way to do that was by cold-blooded murder. Like the Cambodians, the mass-immigrationists give no choices. The mass-immigrationists eliminate differences slowly and nonviolently, but only if you don’t use the gun the founding fathers gave you for just such an emergency. If you shoot, the mask will come off and they will see how similar they are to the Cambodians.
(I am not advocating violent opposition, which is why I am doing all that I can now before it is too late.)
A good discussion. Mr. Coleman has very well handled Mr. Hornak’s call for open borders, but there’s more to be said. Mr. Hornak wrote:
“Last time I checked we were an immigrant country and a free country, where anybody who wants to come and work and pay taxes was supposed to be welcome.”
Now, this is not just a call for open borders, which it certainly is. It is, in a more sinister sense, a statement that America’s policy is ALREADY one of open borders; and furthermore, that this is an established historical fact about America. It follows that there is NO DEBATE to be had. If America is an open-borders country, where anyone is free to come, then people like us who are criticizing immigration are outside of America, illegitimate interlopers.
If this is not Mr. Hornak’s position, then I say the same thing to him that Mr. Coleman said: he’s got to withdraw or modify that statement.
I’m sorry to depart from polite conversation, but some of arguments made here make no sense, and some are outright wacko. There are remarks about losing western civilization, whites becoming second class citizens, the lost one (what ever that is supposed to be) and something having to do with clitorectomy.
First of all, anyone who compalins that whites are losing the culture war is insane. I don’t debate with race baiters. But it should be clear to anyone with half a brain that American culture is the dominant culture world-wide. Our greatest export is ourt culture and people everywhere can’t get enough of it. If you are unhappy that there are towns with no christmas lights, don’t blame the immigrants. That is thanks to the liberal elite, and they are the enemy. Not the guy working at the local dry cleaner.
In fact, our culture is the most resistant to being subsumed by another because it is so dynamic. Anything that grows our culture is consumed and added to our way of life. The muslim world is least adaptable and the conflict we now face is a result of puritan factions rebelling against the influence of our culture.
The one really intelligent comment had to do with our culture being based on individual rights. I agree. Our culture is based not on a history as much as on a philosophy. And it is a very appealing philosophy to most people. Again, that Dems have set up a system that appeals to “tribal interests” is not the fault of the immigrants. We should fight the fight that needs fighting, against the Dem policies of multiculturalism and segregation. (Yes, Pataki kow-towed to hispanics, but interestingly, Bloomberg did not).
As for the argument about 300,000 immigrants vs. 300M, all I can say is I deal in the real world, not wild hypotheticals. But while we’re at it, why is 300,000 better than the one million we currently allow in? In the real world, not everybody wants to come here. We have a pretty good idea how many do. The one million that we allow in, plus the at least 500,000 illegals, plus the ones on the waiting lists. So that is where I get the 2M number from. That would accomodate most of the people wanting to come in without causing too many problems. We could try 1.5M instead, but we need to revamp our immigration system completely for any of this to work.
True, the income taxes on a family at median income may not cover the costs of public services, but there are other intangible taxes that added together more than make up the difference. Plus, nit every immigrant has kids in school, which is a large part of the cost.
If we want to talk about learning from history, fine. I can cite dozens of examples of societies that were inflexible to change and withered and died out. That is not the example I want to follow. Everytihng about our country is unique. We are truly one of a kind. A country of 150M was great in it’s time. But then the prevailing belief was that we were headed toward overpopulation and would run out of resouces. At 270M we are still going strong. Europe’s population is declining and its culture is beginning to die. If you are not growing, you are shrinking. There is no such thing as stasis in the long term.
I hate to seem impolite again, but when I hear a desire to limit immigration to only “highly educated, westerized, English-speaking” people I can;t help but wonder why are you so afraid of people different from you? If we’re back to the christams lights issue, well most of these people are catholic or prtoestant and are generally more devout than natural-born citizens. And I don’t need to justify why 450M is better than 270M. We will get there anyway, unless you isolationists should be successful in closing off our borders. Fortunately, history and the odds are in my favor.
No, Mr. Auster, I am not calling for an open borders policy. I am calling for a comlete overhaul of our immigration policy so that we make the vast majority of our immigrants part of the system, paying taxes and contributing toward the services they use. Increasing our quotas with the proper security checks is not an opne borders policy.
My statement is a statement of philosophy, not to be taken literally. It is unfortunate, however, that there are those who think that some people should be less welcome here because of the language they speak or the religious customs they observe. That is not what America is about, nor does it respect our dedication to individual rights that we all believe in so strongly.
It is not Xenophobia to want to control your borders and have an orderly immigration process. President Bush’s plan would be a de facto Amnesty that rewards illegal immigration and creates more of it.
It is not Xenophobia to want to defend the common culture and historic heritage of a nation. I don’t believe that anyone here calls for zerp immigration. Most support limited immigration. Some of the immigrants would be skilled, while others would be refugees or members of families of citizens already here.
Finally, it is not xenophobia to note that large number of immigrants from a neighboring nation posses a special threat. Mexican Tejas became the “Republic of Texas” and the state of Texas because of massive immigration which changed the nature of the province.
Only a small minority of Mexicans in America, and even fewer Mexican Americans, are members of groups like MEChA (although California Lt. Governor Anthony Villagrossa was). However, according to polling, a majority of Mexicans do not consider the Mexican-American border legitimate.
Regardless, the simply fact is that border towns and communities well away from the border are being taken over by Mexicans. This reality cannot be ignored away.
Finally, conservatives cannot ignore the voting patterns of immigrants and their children.
The leftward tilt and then increasing Democrat dominence between 1900 and 1960, can be attributed to the voting patterns of the immigrants of 1880-1920 and their decendants. Bribing Northern white ethnics into joining the Southerners created the Democrat coalition.
You are entirely correct that conservatives and Republicans can and must do a better job of outreach. You are also correct that Republicans like Rudy Giulliani can get minority and immigrant votes. While Giulliani did great things (he made the city manageable, reduced crime…), he was and is a fairly liberal Republican by national standard. He was also unable to build a Republican base around his victories. Part of this was personality, part of it was power politics, and part of it was his use of triangulation, wherein he attacked national conservative Republicans.
The fact is that liberals can always bribe immigrants. We need to assimilate them. Reducing the number of immigrants is a key element, especially when the assimilation process is broken.
Take a look at the demographic collapse of the Conservative Party in NY and the concurrent immigration numbers and tell me how this is good for us.
Lower middle class white ethnics, the core of Republican victories in NYC and Republican-Conservative ones statewide, are fleeing and are being replaced by immigrants. If we are to make NY and NYC competitive, we must have some breathing space to fix and implement assimilation and outreach. An amnesty will only hurt us by opening the floodgates.
I can only say to Ron in his efforts to reach Mr. Hornak: Good Luck. Mr. Hornaks’ basic attitudes and assumptions, especially as shown in his last post, are so far from those of most of the people posting here, somewhere in the Ben Wattenberg/Julian Simon/Ron Unz galaxy, that I can’t see the possibility of any profitable discussion with him.
I can only say to Lawrence that Ron will have no trouble “reaching me,” and clearly is not afraid to discuss his positions intelligently in a public forum, unlike you, Lawrence. I am not like most of the people posting here, and am damn proud of that. I am a conservative.
Ron does raise some very good and fair points. We have a unique problem with Mexico. It is not good for us to have so much immigration from one place, and is not good for Mexico to lose so much of their working class. Vicente Fox refers to this as a brain-drain on Mexico. Unfortunately, he has little incentive to stop it. We do, and should work with our neighbor to build their economy and establish a stronger rule of law and respect for individual rights that would make for amore stable society.
But that does not negate the need to allow immigration form the other countries of the world. Mexico shouldn;t dictate our entire immigration policy.
And I’ll repeat this once more, although I know Ron gets it. I absolutely believe in controlling one’s borders. I want to keep immigration controlled, partly by streamlining the process and making sure that immigrants are incentivized to participate in the process legally. In adition to streamlining the process, I believe we should increase our number of immigrants to accommodate the demand for people who want to come here as a mere matter of survival. Somebody complained that they wanted more immigration from Europe. So do I. In fact, we now descriminate against European immigrants in favor of immigrants from the third world - part of the Dems family reunification plan.
And I agree that we should pay close attention to voting patterns. I just don’t think that is reason enough to tighten our borders. Just the opposite. If we take aat Dems control over the process we will get more immigrants looking to become Americans.
I also agree that we need more assimilation. The Dems work hard to keep people from assimilating, and want them to identify as a group and seek out group rights. THIS IS WHERE OUR REAL FIGHT SHOULD BE WAGED.
But in fact, most immigrants assimilate fairly well over time. Yes, there are places that look clearly foreign, like Miami and some parts of California and NYC, but that really only helps with the assimilation process, nit the reverse. While many of the immigrants continue to exist in their original culture, their children are assimlated amazingly well. I live in one of these communities and see it first hand.
In fact, all these arguments that we should cut back or stop immigration for a period of time to allow for greater assimilation are based on pure speculation. There is no proof that it would have any effect, and flies in the face of reality - that we really do assimilate people fairly well. Show me large communities of second and third generation immigrants who aren;t part of mainstream society. And if we eliminate the Dems plan of bilingual ed then we would do away with any problems that do exist.
Liberals don’t bribe immigrants, they lie to them. But they are the only ones paying any attention so how can you blame some for buying the lies? We, as republicans, need to sell the American dream and fight for a society that treats all fairly and equally. We have our work cut out for us because we will never be succesful in reducing the number of legal immiigrants nor of slowing the flow of illegals. That is just reality and sooner it is faced the sooner we can face the real problems that confront us.
Oh, and Lawrence, I think I defend my positions fairly well too. It’s just too bad that you are so threatened by an opposing view from the right.
There are many arguments used by those that lack social values. One of the favorites is the ad hominem attack. (This might be predictable if one realizes that particular social values such as civility are not valued by those without social values.) Expressions such as “race baiters,” “half a brain,” “insane, “the one intelligent argument,” “wacko,” “I hate to seem impolite,” “what are you afraid of,” “some of the arguments make no sense” (without specifying which ones and why), and “I deal in the real world” are examples. These are attacks on (ridicule of) the person or group instead of the argument.
Fanaticism is another trait common among those lacking social values. A striking example is the proposition that history has nothing to teach America because “everything about America is unique.” Fanatics are famous for their refusal to deal with facts because facts are the basis of criticism, and fanatics don’t criticize their beliefs. This fanatical idea comes very close to (and might be equal to) the extremist’s idea, “I am unique, the usual rules don’t apply to me.” This also seems like leftism; but I am unsure.
As the apparently only dissenting voice on this site I have responded to many arguments from many people. Not an easy thing to do. Some have been thoughtful and intelligent and I have responded to those arguments directly. But many have not. Many have been nothing more than insults and attacks one “people like me” and I respond to those in kind. There has been race-baiting in some of these arguments. Anyone who thinks that whites are losing ARE either in another dimension or are plain racist. Whites control everything in this country. In fact, it is white liberal elites that are causing our problems and not brown hard-working immigrants.
Furthermore, your characterization of me as a fanatic serves to attempt to shut down debate when I have confronted Lawrence that I am happy to debate this. It is you all who (except for Rona nd maybe one or two others) seem to be afraid to have your positions challenged, with your inane comments about the lost one, or whatever that babbling was about.
Clearly I lack social values, as they are defined by you. But I refuse to have you set the terms for the debate. My social values are sound, valid and respectful of others. Yours are clearly skewd in favor of your world view.
And then there was the one who wrote me off from the beginning as some liberal nyc rockefeller republican. Certainly not what I am, but I have avoided engaging in this debate of personalities until now. I am happy to debate issues and have conceded that some points are valid. I have seen no such compromise from your side - oh, but you all are so smart that you don’t need to. How silly of me.
Anyone who wants to carry on a civilized discussion on this issue knows my email and can contact me directly. Ten on one debates just don’t seem to work.
Mr. Hornak wrote in response to one of my statements: “I hate to seem impolite again, but when I hear a desire to limit immigration to only ‘highly educated, westernized, English-speaking’ people I can’t help but wonder why are you so afraid of people different from you?”
I am not afraid of people who are different from me. In fact, I have pretty strenuously avoided what I have referred to as “racialism” in numerous discussions on this board. You could put my name into the Search feature and read some of my old posts to get a feel for my beliefs.
A black man from Trinidad who is well educated, likely to succeed economically in the USA, above the median in every respect in his own country, fluent in English as his first language, and “Westernized” in the sense that he understands quite a bit of our legal system and heritage because he spent his whole life in the British Commonwealth, is a VERY acceptable immigrant to me. I don’t particularly care about the color of his skin. I would be happier to have him immigrate here than a white individual from the Green Party in Germany, to take one example.
However, to answer your question about why I favor 300,000 legal immigrants per year rather than the current 1 million: (1) As soon as that black man arrives from Trinidad, he will be in the middle of a culture war in which he will be pressured to consider himself as a member of a race rather than as an individual. Because of his black skin, he will immediately be eligible for special treatment, affirmative action programs, etc. The fewer the numbers of such people, the more likely it is that the culture wars will tip in our favor. It is just terrific that you oppose multiculturalism, etc., but you cannot just say that we should fight against group rights and then treat immigration as a separate issue. It will be a separate issue AFTER we win the fight to defend our Western heritage of individualism, Judeo-Christian morals, English common law heritage, etc. After we win that war, not only can we bring in my man from Trinidad, we can even bring in a SMALL number of immigrants from third world countries that do NOT have a British Commonwealth heritage, don’t speak English as a first language, etc., and then assimilate them. If we bring in large numbers of immigrants who are recognizably different from the majority in America, they will be tempted to band together and establish a separate society within the society, even if we have already won the culture war, thus restarting the culture war all over again.. Thus, under no conditions would it make sense to bring in large numbers of immigrants. (2) I choose the number 300,000 to keep a stable population. If you don’t see the problems that have been caused by our growth from 150 million to 270 million, then you will probably not understand this point and I won’t waste time on it. (3) I choose a lower number because the analyses that I have seen indicate that we will exhaust the educated, Westernized pool of potential immigrants by the time we reach that number, and the surplus above that number will be filled by unskilled laborers. Again, it would probably take an entire separate discussion to address why I don’t think that this is desirable. (4) I favor a lower number because that will turn off the leftists around the world, especially in Europe, who will whine about how “nativist” and “xenophobic” we have become over here, which will keep their type from wanting to come here, while bringing us to the attention of the kinds of Europeans I would like to come here.
Let me make a final point that is significant: The leftist style of discourse is to constantly try to guess what dark motivations your opponent might have for holding his views, and then attack him for his supposed motivations rather than deal directly with his views. Your question, “I can’t help but wonder why are you so afraid of people different from you?” is straight out of the leftist playbook. Not only is it way off the mark in my case, it would be an irrelevant question even if it perfectly described my motivations. Either you can make the rational case for increased immigration, or you cannot, but my motivations are not pertinent to the discussion. You will notice that, as a true conservative, I have disagreed with you at length on this thread and have not speculated a single time about your feelings or motives, while you have referred to “xenophobia”, speculated about people being afraid of different people, etc.
If you want to make a rational case for increased immigration, why don’t you start by finding some documentation of the number of people on visa waiting lists, etc., who are proficient in English, highly skilled or educated, etc., instead of simply speculating that there must be so many of them that we could end the current “family reunification” chain migration policy and STILL increase our quotas to 1.5 or 2.0 million from the current 1.0 million? Where is your evidence? I sincerely would love to find out that there are a million or more such people who want to come here EVERY year (not just the first year, when the backlog would be satisfied). Show me something besides your speculations.
If you would like to read some more on the subjects we don’t have time and space to discuss, here are a couple of possibilities: On why it is not good economically to import unskilled farm laborers: http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/msk07-22-01.html and also http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/krikorian200401070923.asp On the economic costs and benefits of unskilled labor immigrants, especially illegal aliens: http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/illegals.htm
The lack of social values is illustrated by a statement such as, “It is not good for us to have so much immigration from one place.” Therefore, it is not good to have so many Americans in one place.
Just to clear up an apparent misunderstanding by Mr. Hornak, who said: “Anyone who thinks that whites are losing ARE either in another dimension or are plain racist. Whites control everything in this country. In fact, it is white liberal elites that are causing our problems and not brown hard-working immigrants.”
When someone on this board says that “We are losing the culture war” or something similar, the “we” refers to the traditionalist conservatives who populate this board, not to whites in general or Americans in general. If we speak of whites in general and note that white liberals control the news media, universities, Hollywood, etc., then yes, whites are very much in control around here. If we speak of Americans in general and note that American popular culture and fast food establishments are spreading around the world, then yes, American culture, so defined, is winning worldwide.
If, however, we think of the heritage of America (Judeo-Christian morals, equality of each individual before the law, British common law and the development of the central idea that the law is a shield for individuals rather than primarily a weapon in the hands of the state, Western individualism, the English language, the high culture of European art and literature and architecture, etc.), then we do not look around our own country and see these things advancing and all else retreating, much less do we see such progress happening worldwide.
Others have answered Mr. Hornak’s arguments well, so I won’t jump in. I post only to correct something Ron L said: “I don’t believe that anyone here [VFR, presumably] calls for zero immigration.”
Not so! I most emphatically do call for zero immigration. Not only that, I call for mass repatriation of foreign nationals (i) who are not learning English and assimilating to American ways, as defined by Americans and nobody else, (ii) who become public charges, and (iii) - most importantly - whose presence does not benefit Americans. Illegal aliens should be forcibly removed, while legally resident aliens should have their status reviewed from an unapologetically American point of view. In every year for at least the next 40 (roughly as long as we have been subjected to unwelcome and largely uncontrolled immigration thanks to the Celler/Kennedy immigration “reforms” of 1965), the number of resident aliens leaving the United States should substantially exceed the number arriving.
That is a harsh view, but it is what I believe is necessary in order to preserve for our posterity an America that would be even remotely recognizable to our predecessors. It is certainly true that many of our intractable social problems are home-grown. That is no argument in favor of immigration. If anything, it reinforces the need not to import foreign racial, ethnic and social strife when we already have so much of our own. HRS
I had said, in what I thought was a polite and restrained way, that Mr. Hornak’s views are so far from those of immigration restrictionists that I saw no possibility of profitable discussion with him. He replies with the cheap shot that I am “threatened” by views different from my own. I agree that I certainly am threatened by a mindless arrogant force that seeks to open our borders ever wider to the world and is deaf to all reason. Thus, for example, I am indeed threatened by the Bush immigration proposal. That’s why I’ve had scores of blog entries and megabytes of this website devoted to opposing it.
But let me give some examples of Mr. Hornak’s statements which tell me that there is no possibility of useful discussion with him.
“The argument that they mostly become democrats is lame. If you don’t want immigrants to be Dems, then get off your self-righteous butts and go out and recruit these people to the party!”
Notice his assumption that not only can we let in a million or two million immigrants a year and somehow process them all and assimilate them all (even though our capacity is now already hopelessly overloaded), but that on top of that, we have the ability—if only we would get off our self-righteous butts—to convert them into Republicans! As though the Republican party had not been doing everything it could to convert Hispanics and blacks to the GOP. Mr. Hornak seems to have the notion that people can literally do whatever they set their minds to. It doesn’t occur to him that there may be forces in the world that are not amenable to our shaping, for example, that people may be situated in life in such a way that they will naturally prefer the Democratic party to the Republican. For Mr. Hornak, there are no impossibilities. The “can-do” spirit conquers all. So if Hispanics are overwhelmingly Democratic, that is not because of something inherent about the Hispanics, it is because of something that REPUBLICANS are doing wrong.
“Anyone who complains that whites are losing the culture war is insane. I don’t debate with race baiters. But it should be clear to anyone with half a brain that American culture is the dominant culture world-wide.”
This is a further example of a mindset that I find simultaneously so alien from my own and so impervious to reality that no real discussion is possible. I see our own culture as having been, not just harmed, but destroyed in recent decades, not only by immigration of course, but by the all the changes that have occurred. Mr. Hornak looks at the same world and sees the opposite—a thriving, expanding, powerful culture. What explains the difference? To Hornak, pop culture, hyper-individualism, and global capitalism ARE our culture, and since those things are expanding, therefore our culture is expanding and is the dominant culture in the world. But from the point of view of a traditionalist, the pop culture with its hyper-individualism and degraded values is NOT our culture but the very force that has destroyed our true culture. Thus Hornak and I are inhabiting different perceptual worlds. I know from experience that when someone’s basic assumptions and values are so different from mine, no useful discussion is possible.
“If you are unhappy that there are towns with no Christmas lights, don’t blame the immigrants. That is thanks to the liberal elite, and they are the enemy. Not the guy working at the local dry cleaner.”
Here Mr. Hornak reveals himself as not just a person with a different point of view, but as a stupid and ignorant person. In this comment he was responding to an earlier post by Reg Caesar:
“Right across the river is the country’s largest Somali neighborhood. It appears safe enough at night, but it is very eerie to drive through it in the dark of December and see block after block with nary a Christmas light.”
Obviously the reason there are no Christmas lights in this Somali neighborhood is that that Somalis are Moslems. But Hornak, in his idiocy and ignorance, seems to imagine that the Somalis don’t observe Christmas because “liberal elites” have pushed multiculturalism on them! This is truly taking an extreme the hoary argument that all the problems connected with immigration are not due to the immigrants, but to liberal elites.
“In the real world, not everybody wants to come here. We have a pretty good idea how many do. The one million that we allow in, plus the at least 500,000 illegals, plus the ones on the waiting lists. So that is where I get the 2M number from.”
Further evidence that our Mr. Hornak is not the smart guy he thinks he is. Earlier he had said that he wants to reduce low-skill immigrants and bring in more Europeans. Yet here he says that his criterion of how many people to admit is how many people want to come. Obviously that means LEGALIZING THE CURRENT ILLEGAL INFLUX. The current illegal influx is predominantly of low-skill persons from Mexico. So, under his plan, THAT’S what we will have more of, not high-skilled persons from Europe.
“I can cite dozens of examples of societies that were inflexible to change and withered and died out. That is not the example I want to follow.”
Only a truly thoughtless person, a person immune to rational argument, would set up a false choice between letting in a million or two million immigrants a year on one side, and withering and dying on the other.
“It is unfortunate, however, that there are those who think that some people should be less welcome here because of the language they speak or the religious customs they observe. That is not what America is about, nor does it respect our dedication to individual rights that we all believe in so strongly.”
How could Mr. Hornak possibly engage in a rational discussion of the negative cultural effect of mass non-European immigration on America, if he regards the very topic as “unfortunate,” un-American, and a sign of xenophobia?
Yet this Mr. Hornak, who thinks that America is DEFINED by its openness to people from different cultures, and who defines our own culture purely in terms of the global spread of pop culture and acquisitive capitalism, and who thinks that our culture will wither and die without two million immigrants a year, considers himself a “PROUD CONSERVATIVE”! I guess so, if conservatism means mindless arrogant boosterism.
Well, now that we all have completely degenerated in a name calling fit, let me end this conversation with this.
It si not I who am showing massive ignorance. Quite the opostie, i am trying to deal with the real world. The real world is the one we live in and can affect. You all seem to still live in the 1950’s longing for a time that has passed you by and is never coming back.
Reality check: if we have 1M legal immigrants and at least half a million illegals every year, then my numbers seem pretty reasonable. Want to try 1.5M per year, fine. The evidence bears that out.
The real problem here is that you whine for a culture that you really can;t define or explain. My culture is one based on the rights of the individual, not on McDonalds. But it so happens that our exporting of pop culture has been leading to the exporting of democracy for the last 20-30 years. The seeds are growing and are clear everywhere you look. Europe has quietly been adopting pro-market reforms, the deas of liberty have been spreading throughout the east, and even China is starting to come around.
Want to look at history, fine. The west began trading with the east in the 1400’s. After a few decades, christianity was firmly entrenched in eastern society. Ideas spread along with trade. Our culture, every aspect of it, is winning everywhere around the world. The only hold outs are some of the muslim countries where radical muslims rule.
So, if this utopian society you whine for is define by having an educated population, then let’s educate our kids. We can clearly do much better. It’s not just immigrant communities that perform poorly. But we should be teaching all our kids in english, so they can work and thrive in this country.
The example of the town where there were no christmas lights I was generous and took to be an example of the larger problem of multiculturalism and the left’s attack on religion. If it was as simple as the people are muslim, and the writer had a problem with that, then he IS racist.
I do not value unskilled laborers less than educated workers. I want more educated people to come in because those are usually the ones on the waiting lists.
Nor do I have a preference for language or religion of immigrants. It’s not so much that I want more people to come in, I want the people who want to be here as demonstrated by their actions to have a better mechanism to come legally. If some more come than now, fine. I feel very confident that we will continue to assimilate them and their kids will be a very successful part of the American future.
Want to look at history again? There are great examples of subcultures thriving and being a great part of America. I live next door to an asian methodist church. Most of their services are in their native language, with only a few a week in english. Tragedy? Well, two blocks the other way is one of the oldest Temples in the country. And they conduct their services in… Hebrew! Oh my god, what are we going to do with these people that won’t assimilate!
In fact Jews are a great example of a subculture that has coexisted and done well in America. Why? Because we respect the individual and their choices. Certainly not out of any universal love for Jews.
That my views are foreign to you is clear. I see the world and America as a glass half full, while you see it as a glass half empty with holes in it.
But my original charge remains the same. The problems we see in certain places where we have large numbers of immigrants only magnifies a problem with our own society that needs top be addressed. So let’s fix education, multicuturalism and the other problems and stop scapegoating the immigrants.
Finally, Lawrence, I am sad that as the lead of this blog you can’t find a way to have a rational conversation about your views, but instead can only preach to the choir. If you had tried, you may have found it interesting. I am happy to discuss the problems that we need to address concerning immigrants. I feel we as a people are intelligent enough to solve those problems without throwing the baby out with teh bath water. Bottom line is that curtailing immigration is not the panacea for all our culture problems, and in fact is a distraction from the real fights we have to face.
Mssrs. Coleman, Auster and others have demolished most of Mr. Hornak’s assertions. Mr. Hornak evidently holds the belief that democracy and free-market capitalism constitute the essence of virtue and morality. This is basically the neocon propositional nation idea writ large. The concept of a transcendent morality that exists apart from capiltalism and democracy is utterly alien. Mr. Hornak calls himself a conservative, but the worldview dispalyed here, along with the typical leftist charges of racism and xenophobia, is liberalism to the core.
I hope that, whatever else he did, Mr. Auster showed you the depth of the disagreement between yourself and the dominant opinion on this website on the question of immigration. I hope, furthermore, that it is comprehensible to you that when someone like yourself enters this discussion full of incendiary language (“xenophobia,” “race-baiters,” etc.) and imputations about motives, he is not likely to receive a warm welome.
We say, If we in this country persist in the immigration policy we have for much longer — a generation, perhaps — or if, God forbid, we assent to President’s Bush acceleration of the present policy, we will destroy the America that we love and cherish. It will be come a hateful thing to us.
You reply, No: immigration will strengthen this country and the dangers it poses are minimal; in fact, _not_ continuing on something very close to our present course, will weaken the country in a grievous way.
Now my question is this: Can you not see black, yawning gap of absolute irreconcilable disagreement between us here?
In short, I hope it is clear to you that, in a debate such as this one, between men whose disagreement is so profound, the best that can be hoped for is the achievement of what we might call the clarity of disagreement.
What we have here is a disagreement about the nature of our country; and, leaving aside the specific points in dispute, the picture of America you have painted is an inferior one. Catchwords abound: “democracy,” “rights of the individual,” but the philosophy that grounds them is vapid.
A few examples: (1) when a self-described conservative declares that he has no “preference for [the] language or religion of immigrants,” he has, I think it is fair to say, immediately called his conservatism into profound question. It astonishes me that it is necessary to even argue why this is so. Is it not obvious?
(2) You devote alot of energy to celebrating the virtue of something called democracy. This idea of democracy and its “export” seems to be something you consider central to the nature of America. But any serious reading of America’s Founders will show that they thought democracy a dubious thing indeed — a thing neutral at best, and in many circumstances inimical to the liberty and happiness of decent men. At the very least, your conception of America as the empire of democracy is open to question.
Some in this discussion have treated you a bit roughly, it is true; but it is also a fact that you did not initiate the debate in terms that suggested great civility and respect. You have been challenged on specific pinciples, facts and arguments, and your responses have generally ranged from the feeble to the idiotic. You came into this debate with the words, “I’m truly shocked at the xenophobia here,” and now threaten to leave it because of “name-calling.” This is not the kind of conduct one would expect from a serious adult.
There is a good sign here. We are obviously threatening to those without social values and to those with social values different from ours. We also see that those without social values do not have good arguments for their position. With his amnesty scheme, President Bush has forced his supporters to deal with arguments they thought they were going to avoid. What is astonishing is how President Bush has fooled and silenced his supporters with his advocacy of no social values, all the while leading his invasion by Mexico. If the invasion succeeds, we will hear his successors talk about a return to and protection of traditional values, that is, the traditional values of Mexicans. The assimilation will have taken place; the assimilation of Americans by Mexico.
Bush might have shown his hand too early, thinking he had already won the culture war.
Mr. Cella writes to Mr. Hornak:
“You came into this debate with the words, ‘I’m truly shocked at the xenophobia here,’ and now threaten to leave it because of ‘name-calling.’ This is not the kind of conduct one would expect from a serious adult.”
Mr. Cella has put paid to Mr. H. I’d just like to add one small clarification on Mr. H’s charge against me of name-calling.
In an earlier post, I had written:
“Mr. Hornaks’ basic attitudes and assumptions, especially as shown in his last post, are so far from those of most of the people posting here, somewhere in the Ben Wattenberg/Julian Simon/Ron Unz galaxy, that I can’t see the possibility of any profitable discussion with him.”
Now when I wrote this I was in fact already harboring the same critical thoughts about Mr. H that I later expressed openly. But in the interests of civility I did not say anything critical of him, but put the disagreement in neutral terms, saying simply that he and I were too far apart for useful debate. Yet in response to my restrained and objective observation, he threw out that cheap shot that I was “threatened” by his arguments. This relieved me of any further obligation to be polite to him, and I let him have it.
Among the Wall Street Journal boilerplate nonsense spouted by Mr. Hornak there was a statement that was not challenged. He thinks that we know how many people want to come to US. He thinks that number is roughly equal to number on immigration waiting list plus illegals. He estimates this number to be below 2 million /year.
Of course we have an educated guess of how many people will come in if borders are open. And it is decidedly NOT 2 mil/year.
There are several real-life events happened that can teach us about these numbers. One involves Soviet Union and Israel.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s Gorbachev closed his eyes shut (and closed his mind) and leaped into unknown. He called it perestroika. Soviet economy disintergrated and Soviet Union was dead soon enough. Life became pretty hard for lower and middle classes. At the same time SU removed almost all restrictions on emigration. Israel, of course, always had a welcome open door policy for Jews (to be precise for anyone self-declared as a Jew).
Soviet Jews, mostly middle class, had a choice to stay in a poor and troubled country or move to Israel where, at the time, standard of living was quite a bit higher. In one year, 1990, 10% of them moved. In the next year another 10% moved.
There was no war or famine in the SU at the time, just a bad economy. We can make an educated guess that in peace time 10% will move from waste dump countries per year till they will drive living in the USA so bad that it will not be attractive anymore.
10% of China + India + Indonesia + Mexico + Pakistan + Africa + Arabia could be as high as 300 - 400 million. In the first year!
I have never seen Simon, Unz, WSJ address this number. If they think it is OK to get 300 mil on one year, they should say so. If it is not OK, why?
Here is some common ground with Mr. Hornak. He agrees with us that we need to get rid of the family unification basis for our current immigration policy, which leaves us importing unskilled relatives of previous immigrants while leaving educated Europeans and Asians on the waiting lists. He agrees with us that it is not wise to get 50% or more of our immigrants from one place (Mexico) rather than skimming the cream off numerous cultures from all over the world. He agrees with us that we need to do away with the leftist multiculturalism and bilingualism (or is it multilingualism these days?) because these are bad in their own right in addition to having a bad interaction with immigration. He agrees that our borders should be defended against illegal immigration.
He disagrees with us on the total quotas that we should have for immigration, as well as a few other points that I will gloss over for now.
Here is an easy detente: Mr. Hornak can join all of us in working on what we agree on. He can write his congressman and senators and president about the need to get rid of family unification, and Mexican-dominated immigration; the need to step up security at our borders drastically; the need to admit skilled/educated/English fluent immigrants and not leave them on the waiting lists; the need to end multicultural and multilingual policies; etc. We will all do the same; I am already doing the same, as I have mentioned in previous postings (in fact, I will soon post links to replies I received from my representative and senators). He will immediately be attacked as a xenophobe and racist, of course, if he publicly advocates all of these things. He will also find himself estranged from the majority of Republican politicians and more than 90% of Democrats, but we will be happy to have him on our team.
When all of this is accomplished, we can get back together and see how the 1,000,000 cap on legal immigration is working out. If we have big waiting lists of educated, English-fluent would-be immigrants because that cap is too low, I will concede that the cap should be raised, and will write my congressmen accordingly. If we cannot even fill the cap with such high-quality immigrants, then Mr. Hornak will join us in lobbying for a reduction in the cap, so that future Congresses (who might become majority Democratic) will not be tempted to start letting in throngs of non-English-speaking unskilled laborers. I will be happy to agree to this compromise, even though I would actually not be eager to lift the cap and expand our population, our urban sprawl, etc., but I would be so overjoyed at achieving all these other things that I would happily agree to it today if I thought it could all happen in my lifetime.
The only objection I can think that Mr. Hornak would have to this agreement is that he might think we urgently need a bigger increase in population in the short term, and cannot wait for victory on all these other issues. In that case, he should (1) document, as I have asked, the existence of such large numbers of skilled immigrants waiting to come in today, and (2) examine each of the points of common ground I raised and explain how each will be affected by raising the cap before those battles are won. How will the pressure for and against multilingual education be affected by increased immigration, given that we cannot win this battle quickly at current levels? How will political pressure to NOT adequately defend our borders (this has been well documented, by the way, from corporate lobbyists who want more cheap labor) increase or decrease if we increase immigration caps during a time when we cannot even win a battle that has 75% popular support? Etc., etc., on down the list of issues we agree on.
I also want to underscore this excellent statement by Mr. Cella:
“[I]n a debate such as this one, between men whose disagreement is so profound, the best that can be hoped for is the achievement of what we might call the clarity of disagreement.”
The clarity of disagreement. What a useful concept. In a debate between irreconcilable views, people usually tend just to go back and forth and speak past each other. But if the parties are both rational enough to recognize that there is no hope of either one persuading the other, and instead attempt simply to identify WHAT each of their respective and irreconciable positions are, then they actually COULD have a useful discussion. That is, instead of B saying, ”A’s position is wrong and terrible because of X, Y, and Z,” B would have to say, “A’s position consists of the assertions P, Q, and R.” They would speak objectively about each other’s position instead of being locked in combat.
Also, I can’t refrain from commenting on one further nugget of Mr. Hornak’s. He wrote:
“The example of the town where there were no christmas lights I was generous and took to be an example of the larger problem of multiculturalism and the left’s attack on religion. If it was as simple as the people are muslim, and the writer had a problem with that, then he IS racist.”
In other words, as long as Mr. Hornak believed that the immigrant town denuded of Christianity was the result of multiculturalists who had stripped the town of its Christianity, he felt that that was a fair target. But when he realized that the town was denuded of Christianity because its inhabitants were _Moslems_, then it suddenly became “racist” for anyone to draw critical attention to that fact. According to the open-borders “conservatives,” negative cultural phenomena associated with immigration can be criticized, but ONLY if those phenomena are attributed to leftists and multiculturalists. If the phenomena are attributed to the immigrants themselves, THAT is racism and will not be allowed.
This exemplifies the way our common mental world has been thoroughly ideologized and “PC”-ized by mass diverse immigration.
I’m sorry if Mr.Hornak was offended by members of this forum defending themselves; perhaps I was a little harsh in equating his hoary insights with those of that great cultural philosopher Paris Hilton, but I call them as I see them. I’ll leave you with this Mr. Hornak: immigration to the United States should benifit the United States, period ! Not the other way around. I, most of the people on this forum, and close to 80% of the American public feel we have had enough immigration in the last 40 years. We are NOT the flop-house of the world, or the colony of the world, and we have every damn right to close the borders down, for however long we want, and not be called filthy names by the likes of you. BTW, I see you threw a dig at the 50’s. That tells me you have some understanding that it was indeed a better time, and perhaps the apex of our culture. And of course you go on to taunt the forum that we will never get those times back. Perhaps you are correct that we will never see a civil society like the 50’s again, but that says more about you than us !
I would amend Mr. Hagan’s last sentence to read, “Perhaps you are correct that we will never see a civil society like the 50’s again, but your schadenfreude about that says more about you than us!”
Mr. Coleman’s post Mr. Hornak at 3:04 PM is a gem of reasoning. Since Mr. Hornak tells us that he will, happily, not be posting again at this forum, but offers to continue the discussion with individuals via e-mail, I recommend that Mr. Coleman send him a copy of his post and tell us how he responds to it.
As a quick interlude here, a report in today’s Washington Times discuss the Mohammedan terrororist “sleeper cells” hiding here in the U.S., waiting for the right moment to strike.
Of course, this would never have been possible if we hadn’t opened the floodgates from Mohammedan countries and allowed millions to settle here. I would think that the threat posed by the current situation would be reason enough to shut off this flow; it’s hard enough to investigate a few among so many — but to keep adding to that ‘many’?
Some of these terrorists-in-waiting are also taking advantage of our pourous southern border.
I see that Mr. Hornak will no longer be posting on the forum, and that is his decesion. Mr. Auster runs an open forum, and only asks for civility, and some ability to form logical thoughts, both skills which Mr.Hornak seems to lack. I do hope in the future more people post here who disagree with the forum; it can be productive for everyone involved if it is done properly.
I disagree with the idea of admitting immigrants because they are skilled and fluent in English and they might be useful to some degree. There is no cultural value in that proposal. It is a utilitarian proposal, and utilitarian proposals are part of the problem with immigration policy.
Much of what the mass-immigrationists propose is backed with utilitarian arguments. For example: immigrants do jobs Americans won’t do; there is strength in diversity; they are good for the economy; they add to our military etc.
The proposal would still result in the displacement of the existing culture. The admission criteria should be much stricter, in my view.
i will be posting again, but am traveling now. I will give you all plenty of time to answer one question.
Please define the culture you are seeking to protect. You have made it clear from your attacks on me what it is not. But none of you can articulate exactly what it is.
Also, please explain exactly what immigrants do to dilute it.
I read Mr. Coleman’s post and found him to be fair and honest. I can see where my deabte style may have been a bit dramatic from the start. I have never visited this site before and expected to be grteated with hostility after reading the prior posts. Of course, you all chimed right in with your own attacks, so I was not disappointed.
But never mind that. I will set aside the racism for now if yo uall will ignore my ignorance, hubris and lack of intelligence. Let’s have a debate that gets to the heart of teh matter. So I hope to hear from you, and particularly from our host, in response to the questions above.
PS it has been my pleasure to spice things up a bit.
Mr. Hornak demands his own personal tutorial on the meaning of American culture. That is a different subject from the subject of this thread and too large a subject for a discussion forum such as this, though people are free to assay an answer if they feel like it. Perhaps I’ll put some things together on that subject in a new blog entry in the near future. But for the time being, instead of expecting us to do all the work for him, perhaps Mr. Hornak could do a little work of his own. He could start by reading two of my booklets, The Path to National Suicide and Erasing America, available at AIC Foundation:
And here are two full-length article on immigration posted here at VFR. Also, since he says he’s new to this site, he could go to the archives page or search page and look for articles on immigration.
Mr. Hornak, as he says, will set aside the racism for now. Meaning, of course, that we are all certainly racists; and when he comes back to the forum he will pick up that charge and begin to beat us about the head and limbs with it ! I for one agree with Mr. Auster, Robert Hornak is not worth the time; or the trouble to debate with.
Mr. Coleman writes:
“the need to admit skilled/educated/English fluent immigrants and not leave them on the waiting lists..”
“When all of this is accomplished, we can get back together and see how the 1,000,000 cap on legal immigration is working out. If we have big waiting lists of educated, English-fluent would-be immigrants because that cap is too low, I will concede that the cap should be raised, and will write my congressmen accordingly.”
It appears from the above that USA is obligated to admit virtually anyone who is educated (in what?) and speaks some English (what the criteria for that?). There is no consideration of impact on the labor market or American culture.
I submit that this approach is only slightly less revolutionary than Senor Bush manifesto. Or perhaps slightly more elitists in demanding more education and English skills from would be immigrants.
Do you realize how many people in the world fit these criteria? And how many people will fit these criteria in a very short order once information spreads?
Very few employees are difficult to replace with a much cheaper immigrant labor. Star entertainers and athlets, a few top scientists and physicians.
In the past I was involved with projects outside of USA where they could hire from anywhere. HR guy would place ads in Indian and Paki publications and Amazon-like stream of resumes will start arriving. My recollection is that for practically every position you would get a dozen or more of applicants who look pretty good on paper and after phone interview.
My guess is that Mr. Colman immigration-lite proposal will cause at least 10 million new arrivals per year. Current unemployment is about 6% (LOL), how would you like unemployment stuck at 15%?
In response to j.hagen, you are a sad person with no sense of humor. As for you, Lawrence, I am surprised that you can’t answer that simple question. Or am I just not worth debating? I don’t know, I think I raise some good points worth discussing. And I assume that since you saw fit to add me to your emai list that you must have wanted to invite people like me in for the debate.
But if the crux of your whole argument rests on “American culture” as you define it, then please define it in a paragraph or two and set the terms for the debate. You go on endlessly about it, but yet can;t seem to be able to concisely articulate what it is. I won;t debate you on your definition, but you should be able to explain it in a few sentences. If that is the basis for your entire opposition to immigration then you need to be able to define it for us less educated folk.
In response to the objections of Mr. Murgos and “mik”, I thought I made it quite clear that my ideal for immigration is to bring in about 300,000 of the very most Westernized and educated applicants, preferably those who have an understanding of our Anglo-Saxon cultural and legal heritage by virtue of having spent their lives somewhere in the British Commonwealth, and are thus fluent in English as a FIRST language.
The number 300,000 was chosen from published data that about 300,000 emigrate out of the USA each year, and the native population is at about replacement birth rates. Actual decline in population presents some economic problems of its own, such as real estate (and other) deflationary pressures.
As a compromise, I said that I would entertain a larger number than 300,000 only AFTER we have totally won the war against multiculturalism, multilingualism, group rights, etc. My point to Mr. Hornak was that winning these battles was obviously far more important to everyone — including him — than raising the immigration cap, and I would not think it likely that all of these battles would be won in my lifetime, anyway. Thus, ever setting the cap above the 300,000 level would depend on a rather stunning and unexpected reversal of most of our cultural trends and is therefore a hypothetical that would likely always remain so.
Mr. Hornak wants a concise definition of the culture we are trying to preserve, which is difficult to do, of course. I believe that I mentioned my cultural concerns earlier. My concluding sentence from an earlier posting was: “If, however, we think of the heritage of America (Judeo-Christian morals, equality of each individual before the law, British common law and the development of the central idea that the law is a shield for individuals rather than primarily a weapon in the hands of the state, Western individualism, the English language, the high culture of European art and literature and architecture, etc.), then we do not look around our own country and see these things advancing and all else retreating, much less do we see such progress happening worldwide.”
If this is too concise to communicate the ideas clearly, then I could expand somewhat on them without getting too lengthy for this board.
Let me address something that I think underlies the lack of understanding of “culture” between the two parties here. George W. Bush and the neocons are alike in proclaiming that people all over the world are basically alike, in that they all want freedom and health and safety and prosperity, etc. This is the justification for globalist militarism: We are bringing American democracy and capitalism and other forms of freedom to the world, and everyone wants that because all people are basically alike.
On the level of the lowest common denominator, I guess everyone in the world prefers good health to poor health, everyone would rather eat than starve, etc., but when we get past that level, we find that people are in fact quite different throughout the world. For example, everyone in the world loves their children and wants what is best for them, right? Well, a news story out of Jordan recently told of a family that suspected that their unmarried 22-year-old daughter was sexually active. They had no proof, but the family honor was at stake because of rumors in the community. One of her brothers was assigned to kill her. After the honor killing was accomplished, not only was it noted that the legal authorities were going to look the other way, but the parents threw a big party to celebrate their own daughter’s death and the restoration of the family’s honor — all on the basis of rumors! Yes, people everywhere are pretty much the same, all right! Do we need to import a large number of such people into our own country?
The belief that our own culture is compatible with diverse cultures from elsewhere in the world is based on two forms of ignorance: (1) No one is taught much about American culture in the public schools, because it would upset various pressure groups if we talked too much about the Anglo-Saxon components of our legal, religious, linguistic, and individualistic heritages, and it would be verboten to talk much about the Judeo-Christian aspects of our moral and ethical heritage. Hence, our typical citizen has only a superficial understanding of American culture as being the Constitution, a free market, a separation of powers within a “democracy”, a general love of “freedom”, success and affluence relative to the rest of the world, etc. A less superficial knowledge of our own culture would make its incompatibility with other cultures more obvious. (2) Most people have a superficial and romanticized view of other cultures. I enjoyed eating Moroccan food at Epcot Center once, but I am wise enough to realize that this does not tell me much about Moroccan culture. If the typical person who expresses such “openness” and “acceptance” of other cultures really got to know most of the world’s cultures intimately, with their caste systems, their brutal suppression of women, their honor killings, their lack of Christian charity, their clannishness and tribalism, their lack of understanding of individual rights, etc., then he would be less willing to buy into the idea that all people are basically the same, basically want the same things, and all assimilate together pretty well given a few years to adjust.
I’ve already replied to Mr. Hornak’s request for further explanations, and pointed to where he could begin to educate himself. Answers to his question on the meaning of American culture and its relationship to immigration are readily available here and elsewhere. The nature of the discussion up to this point leaves me disinclined to provide any further answers to him.
His e-mail address was on a large list to which I send my VFR articles from time to time, but I didn’t know him or of him and had not had any personal correspondence with him.
Concerning Mr. Coleman’s and Mr. Auster’s comments. First Mr. Coleman. I was not addressing any particular person’s plan when I disagreed with the utilitarian aspect of at least part of Mr. Coleman’s proposal. I was just making one point. Mr. Coleman clearly took a substantial amount of time to make his plan to reduce immigration, and I am grateful for that. The plan was too complicated for my limited brain to grasp with just one reading, so I addressed one aspect.
Concerning Mr. Auster’s comment. I would give Mr. Hornak the benefit of the doubt about the usefulness of further discussion with him. I certainly agree with Mr. Auster’s proposal that Mr. Hornak first read the material suggested, at least the articles online. The reason for giving the benefit is I suspect he is a victim of the Bush and the other liberal propagandists who say we can’t do anything about immigration; he even admitted there was nothing we could do about it, if anyone noticed.
Perhaps many years ago he literally gave up on the idea of beating ‘em and joined ‘em. He then focused his effort on his other values which he possibly shares with those of us here and which Bush the deceiver and other closet liberals keep telling him they value. He feels he has no place to go but to the Bushes of the world, which is why he fights for their lies and empty values.
But Mr. Auster is 100% correct in requiring Mr. Hornak to read his articles (at least the online articles.) I would insist he read two more online articles on our related site: one on antiracism http://www.cycad.com/cgi-bin/pinc/apr2000/articles/jk_antiracism.html. and one on anti-inclusiveness, http://jkalb.freeshell.org/web/inclus.php. I’ll bet Mr. Hornak has never had access to such writings. When he returns, perhaps he will tell us how he got to where he is now.
In the long run, we are going to run into a lot of people like Mr. Hornak on the subject of immigration. Having been part of the mainstream of conservatism and the GOP, it seems to many such people that the key issues are a strong foreign policy, low taxes, deregulation, etc. I am in favor of many of the things favored by mainstream conservatives, but I think they aremissing the import of cultural issues through a superficial understanding of cultures, our own and others. The fact that such a person comes across a traditionalist discussion of immigration and shouts “WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT!” is not surprising at all. Certainly, it is difficult to remain polite with someone whose first sentence on this board accuses us of xenophobia. But, in order to succeed in the political realm, we are going to have to meet a lot of people like that and calmly discuss a deeper understanding of traditional American culture until they see that our views are not only something they need not fear, but are quite reasonable and in keeping with the wisdom of the ages.
In response to Messrs Murgos and Coleman’s suggestions that I could be more responsive to Mr. Hornak’s concerns, I’m posting a brief, and very inadequate, summary of what is American culture, in a new entry:
Actually, my remarks were not directed at Mr. Auster in particular. Other posters to this thread were far more dismissive, and took Mr. Hornak’s remarks more personally and combatively. I was addressing the participants in this thread as a group.
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Coleman’s advice (though I do not mean to rebuke anyone here). We are going to have to be patient, even indulgent at times, with many of our interlocutors. There are alot of decent and serious but profoundly misguided people out there (one might even go as far as saying they have been deceived), whose views on immigration have been tortured: by starvation from information, cunning manipulation, intellectual thuggery, etc. I should know: I was one of them, no so long ago.
I thought Mr.Hornak was going on a business trip; but he seems to keep responding to posts; perhaps he has just retreated to his Mom’s basement:) That funny enough for you Robert ? If I wanted to exercise my sense of humor I would post on Democratic Underground, or some such site. We try to engage in serious discussion on issues of importance here. Mr. Auster; in his polite way, has tried to get that across to you. Unlike some others here on the forum, I tend not to suffer fools gladly. Beneath your sometimes jolly, and silly posts, there dwells the typical race-baiter; ready to unleash what he things is his finial trump-card.
Mr. Hagan is correct of course. I don’t for a moment believe Mr. Hornak’s professions of good faith that he really wants to engage in a discussion. He’s just looking for another chance to call us racists. I’ve seen the type before.
In any case, I did respond to the request for a description of American culture.
I would like to return to the subject of Bush’s reasons for the amnesty if I may. Last weekend, I was driving down a road in Middle Tennessee. A construction crew was working on a bridge. All of the workers were Mexicans. Does Mr. Bush (and Mr. Hornak) think Americans won’t do construction work? These construction companies are refusing to employ Americans by hiring Mexicans at low wages. This is the “cheap labor” Big Business Republican mind in action.
GWB is both appeasing his big donors by this policy and satisfying his own personal preference for Mexicans over Americans. This is what Bush means when he lectured congressmen by saying, “I know this issue.”
I fear Hornak has bested many of you in this argument. Not at the abstract level of debate, of course, but at the more important level of public persuasion, which is the battleground for the immigration issue. He realizes what I fear many of you do not. That is, immigration is about self-interest. Clark Coleman, for example, hails his own disinterested stance and hammers away at Hornak: “You will notice that, as a true conservative, I have disagreed with you [Hornak] at length on this thread and have not speculated a single time about your feelings or motives, while you have referred to “xenophobia”, speculated about people being afraid of different people, etc.” Feelings, motivations, and personal advantage, I contend, are about all that do matter.
While it will displease many on this site, culture is of secondary importance in the debate. Primarily, immigration must be discussed in almost Darwinian terms. It really is “us” versus “them”. Culture is important only in whether it provides us vigor and strength. As a people, we will either dominate or be dominated. Culture is the eventual byproduct of the victors. Blacks, browns, Asians, or the 180 to 200 million university educated, English-speaking Indians in that former British colony of India are not going to adapt and advance “Western” civilization. Even if they wanted to, they couldn’t do so. The environmental and cultural matrix in which they have evolved isn’t capable of recreating or reinforcing another people’s belief system. (And, btw, the idea of allowing the immigration of “Westernized” peoples from Commonwealth lands has already been tried—in Britain. It has created a world in which the British will soon be a racial, religious, and cultural minority in their own lands.)
And that raises the ultimate question for Americans: are we in the United States really still “a people”, as that phrase has been understood historically? I doubt it. Because we all know that such a term is really the intertwining of a racial and national identity. That’s long gone in this country. I’ve noted that at vdare.com Steve Sailer frequently defines “race” as “an extended family”. Our American family, so defined, seems to be one that has adopted so many Third World orphans that most traces of the original family members are being erased from the gene pool. Whatever emerges cannot be “Western”—not even if it outlaws abortion, prohibits gay marriage, abolishes affirmative action, acts more Catholic than the Pope, sews a Scarlet A on the blouse of anyone so much as reading a pornographic magazine, and worships Adam Smith. Like the Goths that sacked Rome, they may even *want* to continue the civilization they have sacked and ruined, but they will be incapable of doing so.
We should argue against Third World immigration because it directly threatens us as a race and a people and a nation. I imagine that Mr. Hornak wants to see waves of immigration precisely because it will destroy white Europeans, even as he fails to realize it will just as inevitably destroy their culture. And that is the battle that is taking place with each and every individual in this country: whether their race and people will rule or be ruled over. Unfortunately, other races in this country see this all too clearly, while most whites just look for more ways to sing kumbaya. Make it clear to whites that their own personal safety, wealth and lives are at stake, and they might start to sing Onward Christian Soldiers, instead.
I agree with the substance of what Paul C. has to say, and I talked about it in an earlier post when I mentioned the dangers of a deracinated White population. As much as we cherish culture, science, and the arts, none of that is possible without demographic control of the society. All the happy-talk, and good wishes about cultures and peoples all being equal will in the end only get you a South Africa ! The South African future is not one I wish to live out here in America.
While I am traveling I will attempt to read some of the suggested articles so as to meet your requirements of me to carry on this conversation. Incidentally Lawrence, I don;t need to have Ameerican culture explained to me as I surely believe I have a good grasp on it. What I need is an explaination of what you mean when you use culture as the be all and end all explanation for your positions.
Once again, I retract my comments of xenophobia, et all, from my opriginal post. But if you read some of the earlier posts and the constant characterizations of us pro-immigrationsts, maybe one could see why I was a little combative at first. If you want to end the discussion because I was a little combative, then you have little to stand on yourself. You reacted in kind and then some.
As for my travels, I am in Washington. Some might consider that a basement, I don’t know. But as long as I have my laptop and wireless access at the local starbucks I can stay somewhat connected. But I only have so much battery life and so much time between appts.
I must admit I find it strange that you can’t easily define what it is you are fighting so hard to protect. But I will read some of the material and respond to some of the comments later this week.
I agree with Paul C, though he could have made the same point in fewer words. It’s not as if none of us are aware of the same argument and have made it ourselves.
The key point is how it’s couched. Of course it’s race, but it is not simply and only race. Civilization, culture, ethnicity, race are overlapping but not identical realities, and a serious argument needs to take account of that.
The number of comments in this thread has just passed 100, which may be a VFR record. Unless someone has something really pressing to say here, perhaps we could continue the immigration/culture/race discussion at some other thread.
Paul C. writes: “Clark Coleman, for example, hails his own disinterested stance …” Paul C. has no earthly idea what he is talking about. I have never been “disinterested”. If I were “disinterested”, I would not bother to post. I chose to not argue ad hominem, but if it will please Paul C., I will be happy to make an exception in his case. I would argue the immigration issues without resort to name calling, even of a Mr. Hornak, because one of the elements of our culture that I want to preserve is Anglo-American civility. If “not ad hominem” means the same thing as “disinterested”, then perhaps some instruction in our common language, English, would help meld the common culture of this board so that communication can be productive.
“And, btw, the idea of allowing the immigration of ‘Westernized’ peoples from Commonwealth lands has already been tried—in Britain. It has created a world in which the British will soon be a racial, religious, and cultural minority in their own lands.” Right, but they did not follow my prescription, which was to admit only those who are “above the median in every respect” in their home countries and will succeed in their new country, nor did they hold the numbers to any level that I would approve. Unfortunately for Britain, they have a special relationship with certain former colonies and do not have the restrictions that are needed. An underclass from the various British West Indies members of the Commonwealth continually moves to Britain, swelling their own underclass and contributing little that is positive. Given that the USA has no particular relationship with any British Commonwealth countries, we should admit tiny numbers of only the best from such locations. Even better would be to admit small numbers of the best from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc., where racial assimilation will not be an additional problem.
“Feelings, motivations, and personal advantage, I contend, are about all that do matter.” I wonder if there is anything in such a sweeping statement that the most committed leftist would disagree with?
If you want to know what I think about immigration policy, it would be best to read all that I have written in this thread and notice that only conservative Christian Anglo-Saxons would really fit all the criteria I have mentioned. If we would have trouble getting to a steady-state 300,000 level of immigration with stringent criteria, I would favor small numbers of my second choice peoples, who would be Western Europeans or British Commonwealth citizens, and only the best we can get of any of them.
“Make it clear to whites that their own personal safety, wealth and lives are at stake, and they might start to sing Onward Christian Soldiers, instead.” Why do you suppose I keep bringing up the fact that most people in the world are clannish, tribal, and believe in group rights? The obvious danger is to have such people become a majority. There are about 30-40% of our population, including many whites, who already favor group rights. It would not take too many more to lose Western civilization altogether. Why do you suppose I wrote GWB, both senators, and my representative and mentioned to all of them that GWB had lost my vote? Because I was “disinterested”?
I’m sorry for singling out Paul C for going on at too much length, given the extraordinary length (longer than Paul C’s) of so many posts in this discussion.
Clark Coleman writes:
“In response to the objections of Mr. Murgos and “mik”, I thought I made it quite clear that my ideal for immigration is to bring in about 300,000 of the very most Westernized and educated applicants, preferably those who have an understanding of our Anglo-Saxon cultural and legal heritage by virtue of having spent their lives somewhere in the British Commonwealth, and are thus fluent in English as a FIRST language.”
Mik is my real childhood nickname, there is no need for double quotes. If you feel a need for an insult, you can do it directly as long as it is tolerated by Mr. Auster.
Accordingly to Mr. Coleman plan, if these policies were in force at the time the following individuals were refused entry into USA:
Albert Einstein (A & H Bombs among a few other things)
Enrico Fermi (A bomb)
Edward Teller (H bomb)
I.M. Pei (Architect)
George Balanchine (Performing Arts)
Yes, I should qualify my remarks by saying that I favor a positive brain drain from numerous countries outside of the former British Empire, albeit in very small numbers from each country. I also favor a limited refugee program, NOT including many of the current refugees coming here who have no hope of assimilating. Some of the persons mentioned would have been admitted on brain drain visas, others even as refugees, but I am not trying to spell out every detail of my proposals here. I think I have communicated a general philosophy, and have no intention of drafting legislation on this board.
The name “mik” was put in quotes because it was all lower case and was therefore of unknown meaning. There was no intent to insult, just to highlight that I did not know what the letters “mik” were. I am glad to see Mik join Anglo-American civilization and start using a capital letter at the beginning of his name. Perhaps a few others here can follow his example.
Mr. Coleman’s clarifications are a relief. I was beginning to wonder if he was getting lost.
Here is the crux of it Mr. Coleman. You wrote: “A black man from Trinidad who is well educated, likely to succeed economically in the USA, above the median in every respect in his own country, fluent in English as his first language, and “Westernized” … is a VERY acceptable immigrant to me… . I would be happier to have him immigrate here than a white individual from the Green Party in Germany, to take one example.” There are two things troubling, here. First, if you put some hottentot in a $1500 suit, a bowler hat, and educate him in an Anglo-American university, you’re likely to get … Kofi Annan. If you’re lucky. If you’re not so lucky, you might get an English army trained sergeant such as Idi Amin or a British trained school teacher such as Daniel arap Moi.
But even more troubling is your dismissal of the German who identifies with the Green Party. You may dislike Green Party *politics*, but *culturally* the Greens belong to a strand of German intellectual history stretching back at least to Winckelmann, Lessing, the others connected with the “Laocoon movement”, and the application of Greek art and culture to German thought. That you would prefer some “Commonwealth educated” black man from Trinidad, because he had an MBA in one hand and a graduate degree in political economy in the other demonstrates quite a peculiar view of “Westernization”.
The fact that Paul C. cannot see that many “Westerners” are anti-Western and hence undesirable is one indication of a racial blind spot. Bring in enough Green Party members from various European countries, and we will have a clear majority in favor of homosexual marriage and adoption, group rights, open borders, etc., in a flash. In short order, our civilization will be finished. What comfort will it be then to reflect that these German Greens come from the same country that was once a key element in the development of the West? So what? Greece was a cradle of Western civilization at one time. Should I be happy if a Greek Communist immigrates to America? Should I think of him as a descendant of Aristotle?
The fact that my rather idealized example of the very best that Trinidad might offer us (a description that would be satisfied by so few Trinidadians, most of whom would therefore be happy to stay where they are because they are so successful there) is referred to as a Hottentot with a bowler hat is another indication of racial dementia.
To think that the members of this board when some newcomer talks of racism and xenophobia, when neo-Marxists who hate the West are preferred only because of their skin color, and the heritage that they have disowned and would contribute nothing to preserve!
To: Clark Coleman. Following Mr. Auster’s suggestion to close down this 100+ post thread, I placed my reply to your latest post in the “American culture” topic/thread.
To Mr. Hornak’s reply, yet at the risk of repeating the fine criticisms by my fellow conservatives here of his generalities as in “This presents challenges” and on other points he tried to make, I want to specifically respond to his jab at me for bringing up the analogy of the Fall of the Roman Empire and what America has been doing since LBJ opened the flood gates in (?) 1965 (And I am sure Mr. Auster, Mr. Coleman and Mr. LeFevre and others better versed on our recent and ancient history can improve greatly on my point).
By bringing in the hordes as Mr. Hornak is evidently serious about doing—even as workers—what does he think they are going to do…simply work the fileds, the sweatshops of the big cities, the meat packing plants, hotels and restaurants (as dishwashers, and even waiters) and in highrises everywhere as janitors? No!! They are going to LIVE, and that means propogating with other illegals (although they would be, under Mr. Hornak’s utopia, “legalized citizens”) and bringing in their (illegal) families and relatives. Not ONE of them are given 1) a lie test about their allegiance to this country 2) they are not given mandatory blood tests for diseases as were those prior to 1960 or so and 3) their possible criminal backgrounds in their own countries are not looked into before allowing them in! Not only do they propgate, they do not assimilate. They do not learn English and their loyalty is to their country of origin, NOT to America! Now comes the scary part. As they and their offspring become citizens, they can then join our armed forces. I for one do not want MY country to be filled with people who are not loyal to the United States! Has Mr. Hornak a way of guaranteeing that immigrants or workers we allow to live here are NOT going to be treacherous enemies and sell us down the river as we open up our borders to them and millions of others? We have a big enough problem with Islamics in our military (The Army just arrested a white Guardsmen for trying to send sensitive military information to Al Qaida, for example, not to mention the Army Chaplain(s) arrested for treason or something close to it).
To Mr. Hornak’s seemingly agreeing position in saying “We should arm the people because of too much crime”, that is something that neither Demos nor Repubs will accept—only traditional conservatives and some libertarians (which is the political category where I think Mr. Hornak most closely falls). It was nice of him though to try to look agreeable! Perhaps he would suggest legalizing illicit drugs…
The question of illegal immigration always engenders a great response from sober thinking Americans. I proffer a solution to the present, may I say “crisis”. Let us make Mexico the 51st State. In this way, they would not have to jump the border! Seriously, the problem is no mystery. We, that is, the federal government,have failed and indeed violated its own laws by not enforcing the rules on the books. The State of California should have the preemptive power to disallow all invalid invitations to their domain. No benefits should be granted to any person who has violated both Federal and State laws after illegally entering the country. We must put teeth into our laws if we expect positive and long-lasting results. Political pandering by the leftist for purposes of securing votes and party support at the polls must end! The Democratic party has been silent on this issue. And the Republicans have merely tip-toed around it. Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we now need him the most!The government is too timid to the point of our unfortunate grief. FOr what purpose does our Justice Department exist? The compounded burdens of just one illegal entry on the backs of our taxpayers is horrendous.But milions have taken advantage of our laxity and poorly managed system. It is time to register our voices to the high powers and let them know with certainty that this business must end and soon!