Letters to the Editor
-
Blumenthal on the GOP and Immigration
So GW Milquetoast on global television kowtows to Vicente Fox and corporate America, finally showing his true colors to his Republican base: he's selling out the conservative American middle class to illegal immigrants and the corporate America that exploits the cheap illegal labor, because the cheap labor can't make demands in English or approach American authorities for proper compensation, for fear of being deported. GW Milquetoast now has more in common with wealthy blue-state liberals who also exploit cheap illegal labor so they can demonstrate their phoney multicultural credentials to other rich white liberals while getting their dirty laundry and dishes washed cheaply by brown people, because they're white, too lazy, and too snobbish to do their dirty laundry and dishes themselves. Things European are "cool" and the rich liberals may visit Europe often, but less affluent non-latino European-Americans in the red states are despised as embarassing backward thinking hayseeds, they actually work for a living and do their own dirty laundry and dishes, while their blue-state conservative bretheren, being the blue-state minorities are labled racist. With his ineffective stance on illegal immigration, GW Milquetoast has now aligned himself with the real mercenary racists.
Sidney Blumenthal's piece on American immigration giving hope to tens of millions of illegal Catholic Mexican immigrants was cynical and insincere. Since when is Blumenthal a supporter of Catholicism? Since Catholic immigrants are now aligning themselves en-masse against the average American protestant middle classes? Is Blumenthal backing some sort of Northern Ireland situation developing here in the USA? Skin color means nothing in a conflict like that, just look at the Jews and Muslims, both from the holy land. Or, look at Hindus and Muslims in India. By injecting skin color into the immigration debate Blumenthal's showing his true colors as a typical white liberal race-baiter. In reality, Mexicans are a nationality, not a "race" of people, despite their proclaimed monopoly of one of the skin colors. Americans as a nationality are hated around the world, by Mexicans too, are those multicolored worldly folk hating us racist too?
Why doesn't Blumenathal blame Mexico and it's lousy corrupt system of governance for creating a tsunami of poverty flooding across the American border, despite Mexico's wealth of natural and national resources? The reality is "illegal immigration" is a clever, well orchestrated Mexican invasion of the USA, a Mexico bent on taking back at least the southwestern USA, that Mexico lost in the Mexican war, when US troops back in the 1840s marched on Mexico City with 15,000 American troops dead. As a percentage of the national population dead in a war, compare that to Iraq in 2006. Illegal immigration is great for Mexico, as Mexico get's rid of it's poor underclass and it's overpopulation problem in one shot, and get's about 20 billion undocumented and untaxed dollars sent back home to Mexico each year. Illegal Mexicans bypass the immigration procedure, and so don't have to learn how to speak English too. There's nothing racist about being an English speaker not wanting his children or grandchildren to live in a Latin American USA. Why is latino pride something to respect, while anglo-American pride is something to deride? Why not ask all the legitimate immigration candidates from Asia, Africa,and Europe how they like the immigration line being jumped by millions of illegal Mexican immigrants. America will get immigration fatigue, and these people will be left out of the USA melting pot.
Why the double standards, if Mexico is such a bad place to live, why aren't millions of Mexicans protesting on Mexican streets to enact political change from within Mexico, rather than go to another country to whine? What, their fellow Mexicans would tell them hasta la vista? They're too cowardly to protest in Mexico, as their Catholic Spanish-speaking brothers would kick their asses or worse? If tens of millions of Mexicans want to be Americans, perhaps Mexico should hold a referendum on it's sovreignity, and if a majority said they wanted to be Americans, be the 51st state, they should hand over the reigns of Mexican sovreignity to the US government. As it is, Mexico is colonizing the USA, illegally. Why can't lower class English speaking Americans illegally emigrate to Mexico with Mexican society and the Mexican government providing them all the benefits that illegal Mexicans expect here?
The USA is a nation of immigrants, but the USA in 2006 isn't the USA in 1906, America can't take in every economic refugee Latin America creates without breaking down as a collective society. Who want's to live in a USA with 500+ million people in 30 years? If illegal immigration from Latin America to the USA isn't stopped now, by the end of this century we will be a Latin American nation of a billion people or more.
Supporters of illegal Mexican immigration to the USA are hypocrites or Mexican. I include all wealthy Americans both liberal and conservative who hire illegals in that category, they want to latinize the American economic and political systems and corrupt the best middle-class example of a fair distribution of wealth in the world, because they're as greedy as the Latin American upper classes are, that make Latin America apparently such a woeful place for its lower classes. Blumenthal may get what he wishes for. As both wealthy American conservatives and liberals increasingly seem to be generally greedy types, the USA will probably become just another Latin American nation with an extremely skew distribution of wealth by the turn of this century, leaving Canada as the lone English-speaking outpost in the Americas. Maybe the brave Mexicans from the new and biggest Mexican state of El Mexico Norte will flood across its northern border into Canada then, to prove that the Spaniards were the most succesful and racist colonizers of the Americas. What conquistadors! Sandanista!
-
Why the border strategy?
I think the real question is "Why are there not more round-ups like the IFCO sting in April?"
Why are we not enforcing our laws better? Where are all of the follow-up raids? As long as Americans flout their own laws, there will always be incentives for people to come here outside of the law, in which case it doesn't matter how many troops we station on the border.
One can only speculate, of course, as to why the Republicans would choose this particular strategy over one of enforcing our own laws and prosecuting those who deny Americans and legal visitors the opportunity to work to support their families.
One can only speculate, of course, as to the party affiliation of those arrested in the IFCO raid, though I'm sure an intrepid journalist is on the case. Imagine, though, the horror in Republican headquarters when an analyst who doesn't have their head up their butt checked a mailing list database and figured out that they were all or mostly Republican. (just speculation, remember) If the government actually conducted a sweeping enforcement of existing laws then there's a possible risk that a large portion of the voter base could be disaffected through, say, imprisonment or felony convictions, before the November elections. That would not be a good thing for Republicans.
Thus, it's more strategically optimal to make a stand at the border (and we're going to station them in Arizona, wink, wink) at least until after the Fall elections, after which point it won't matter any more.
Oh, and folks, please don't lump Libertarians in with the GOP. A lot of us do have sufficient conviction to vote our principles and party. (and how could one not vote for the Presidential candidate, on the ballot in all states, who had the balls to be arrested at a national Presidential debate while carrying a court order?) It allows us peaceful nights of sleep knowing we did the right thing.