Thursday, May 31, 2007

The Wall Street Journal Cocoon

Hat tip to Ace of Spades.

Never mind the insults, they just don't get it. So they just insult us. We have to be "for something, not just against" they say. Well, we are for something--walling off the southern border and tightening up the immigration enforcement, rather than being overrun by any "comprehensive" act (of amnesty, followed by a repeat of the 1986 fiasco).

Stephen Moore continues to live in delusions of Republican vitcory through Hispandering, with the same horribly faulty statistical figures! And then Paul Gigot chimes in about the Irish, Italians, and other immigrant groups of the past.

(Which only proves the point about immigration being a net loss for Republicans, Paul, those groups became part of Democrat machine politics for decades! Only in recent years have snapped out of that, and that is largely due to the anti-white sentiments of the Democrats today, pandering to the more often than not browner immigrants.)

The greedheads call the National Review "foaming at the mouth", yet when NRO tells them to put up (some facts) or shut up, of course the WSJ hacks skulk off.

And Robert Pollock claims that we have "a circular argument" when we want to enforce our laws. "But who's being hurt by the silly immigration laws we have?", he asks. Gee, Robbie, how about victims of illegal alien gangs, the overflowing jails, the public schools that no longer teach, the public hospitals that are closing down, the entry level American workers who watch their wages plummet? Are you THAT out of touch in Manhattan, Robbie?

Love how "bigotry" is thrown there just for kicks. How commie liberal of Pauly Gigot. I am told that I "just hate immigrants". I guess that is why I married one. Is this about anger? You betcha, Pauly. Anger at greedheads like you, who just want to shaft the rest of us and the country as a whole, just so you can have your cheap labor....

Well, Stephen Moore, I'll say it proudly. I AM anti-LEGAL immigration in certain areas:

1. "Refugee" status. Has been abused too often and the people who use it tend to become welfare junkies. Look up the Hmong people for a very sharp case in point. Sure from 1975-1990 they could claim justifiable persecution from the communists. But today, the Soviet empire is gone and Vietnam and Laos are trying to curry favor with the West. And even our vets are returning there for visits.

2. Family immigration "daisy chains". The result here was bringing in Grandma and Grandpa to get on SSI. (Recent legislation has tightened this up, thank goodness).

3. H-1B visas. Indentured servants for the tech industry, and sometimes it does not stop there. These are the least objectionable because they are skilled and English speaking. However, if you are an American student who studied your engineering and programming hard and played by the rules, doesn't it just annoy you that your hard work was just devalued? And they want American kids to work and study hard? When something pays less, you get less of it.

4. The "Diversity Immigrant Visa". Here we have a program that treats Citizenship as a lotto prize, has a stated goal of importing people LEAST likely to immigrate into American society, and does not select immigrants based upon skills, or even family ties. But we are propagandized into believing that "Diversity Is Strength". (War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery)

5. And frankly, culture does matter, Robert Henninger, and yes I CAN say that.

WSJ hack John Fund points this out when he speaks disapprovingly of a lack of assimilation and of political opportunists like Mayor Villagarosa of Los Angeles. But he never can make the connection that their his open borders policies brought too many people to assimilate too soon, and also brought people like Antonio the Asshole into power. And he claims to be from SoCal.

Telling line from John Fund:

There are actual groups now, that didn't use to be a hundred years ago, that want to keep people in linguistic, if I dare use the word, Barrios...
Exactly! You are too cowed by the UnAmerican Left that you are afraid to speak the truth, Mr. Fund! Do you really NOT get that???

So yes, some of us ARE anti-immigration to some extent. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Above all, what on earth is wrong with building and manning a wall fence--NOW, and tightening up the ICE to stop visa overstayers, and coming back LATER for other immigration reforms, in a few years, when we can measurably see progress?

Maybe we DO need many many more legal immigrants as some of the romantics suggest. Frankly, I am skeptical (see my examples of bad LEGAL immigration above) but at least we would have control over our own nation and we could calmly discuss the pros and cons. As it is, we are being stampeded into something awful, by people with romantic delusions, sinister agendas, or both. And they call us evil when we dare suggest we want control of our own country.

Meanwhile, Victor Davis Hanson DOES get it, and notes that this immigration is not just an American problem:

Employers may console themselves that they pay better than what the immigrants earned back at home. This might be true, but the wages are never enough to allow such newcomers to achieve parity with their hosts.

Naturally, immigrants soon get angry. And rather than showing thanks for a ticket out of the slums of Mexico City or Tunis, blatant hypocrisy can follow: The once thankful, but now exhausted, alien may wave the flag of the country he would never return to while shunning the culture of the host county he would never leave.

In the second generation — as we see from riots in France or gangs in Los Angeles — things can get even worse.

The moment illegal immigrants arrive, a sort of race begins: Can these newcomers become legal, speak the host language and get educated before they age, get hurt or lose their job? If so, then they assimilate and their children are held up as models of diversity. If not, the end of the story can be welfare or jail.

Hypocrisy abounds on all sides. Free-marketers claim they must have cheap workers to stay competitive. Yet they also count on public subsidies to take care of their former employees when old, sick or in trouble.

Governments in countries such as Mexico and Morocco usually care far more about their emigrants once they are long gone. Then these poor are no longer volatile proof of their own failures, but victims of some wealthy foreign government's indifference. And these pawns usually send cash home.

The lower middle classes complain most about massive immigration, but then they have to compete with aliens for jobs, often live among them and don't use their services. The wealthier, who hire immigrants for low wages and see them only at work, often think mass immigration, even if illegal, is wonderful.

No comments: