If you’re a Democrat and you want to know what the big fuss is about illegal immigration, this is required reading: Illegal Immigration a Problem for Democrats, Too. Heck, I’m making it required reading for anyone reading this entry.

There’s only one part I take issue with: “The tragedy for the party — and the nation — is that Democrats could do a much better job than Republicans controlling illegal immigration. That’s because Democrats are not afraid to do the only thing that could stop it, which is go after the companies that employ undocumented workers.” It would be irony if it was true.

However, it’s simply not true. The crux of the “enforcement-only” argument is that many undocumented workers will self-deport if they can’t find any jobs. How do you make sure they don’t have any jobs? By going after the employers, of course. Who’s trumpeting this view? Why, Mr. Sensenbrenner himself, the guy who is Mr. Big Bad Republican Enforcement-Only Immigration Hard-liner.

In the recent US News & World Report interview that I just linked to, Sensenbrenner says that it’s not possible to deport millions of illegal immigrants, but “if we shut off the jobs by enforcing employer sanctions, many of the illegal immigrants will simply decide to go home because they cannot make money in the United States.” See, straight from the horse’s mouth.

Other than that, the RealClearPolitics article is very good, showing why Democrats should care about this issue too.

If you hop on over to The Carrollton Record, you’ll find a link to my parody article Immigration Advocates Rally Across Canada, which was originally posted on this weblog here. It’s kind of odd seeing a few of my words changed here and there in the article in The Carrollton Record; I’m not used to that after just putting what I want on my weblog. TCR is definitely not the classiest of publications, but I’m glad to see my work being exposed to a larger audience.

I wish I had more time to comment on it, but I am very crunched for time. I will say I liked it, but I wasn’t overly impressed. Congress can pass any bills it wants, but it doesn’t matter if our laws aren’t enforced. I’m not entirely convinced about the sufficiency of the border security measures.

I am placated on the National Guard issue. They’re only staying for a year.

In addition, I would like to note that either you give the current illegals some form of amnesty, or you deport all of them. I’m against mass deportation. I’m afraid that many of those who are really “tough” on immigration are for deportation. Yeah, it’s not fair that the illegals are not totally going to the back of the line, but the mass deportation of 11 million people is wrong.

Here’s the text of the speech if you missed it.

This is the best line from the speech: “We must always remember that real lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their citizenship papers say.”

Good old fashioned Christian values.

Finally, I must say that the ID card proposal is likely a very, very dumb idea. It’s not that employers don’t know they’re hiring illegals, it’s that they turn a blind eye to the problem. They should be penalized.

I have an econ final on Monday and a Political Philosophy final on Wednesday. Both are going to be a bitch. There’s a Slate article on immigration that I really, really want to rip apart. I hope I have time enough later today to write about it, but don’t be surprised if I don’t.

By the way, an article on the New York Times also stresses the Bush and border security angle:Bush to Unveil Plan to Tighten Border Controls. I’m still ambivalent as to whether Bush will really stress border security or not. With a quote like this from Senator Mel Martinez: “A good strong statement on border security is the best thing he can do.” If he’s not convinced Bush will push border security, I’m not convinced.

I’ve been worrying about Karl Rove lately, but it seems as if he might still know his stuff: “But Karl Rove seems determined to secure the border, and I like the focus on results right now” (said Representative Kevin Brady). I wonder if he got away from the investigations enough that he was able to do something with immigration.

We’ll all see Monday. This could make or break Bush.

Bush will address the nation on immigration this Monday at 8 PM, Eastern Time. If you were wondering how low Bush’s approval ratings can go, wait until you see this. He’s probably going to tout the Senate’s “comprehensive” bill (AKA the amnesty bill) that’s in the works. After that, see the bloodbath that ensues when the conservatives really turn on him. Too drastic a characterization? We’ll see. We’ll see what happens when the talk-show and tv hosts are provided with ammo in the form of clips from Bush’s speech. I will be avidly watching the polls and seeing if there’s a drop in Bush’s approval ratings.

Hopefully, I’ll get to catch the speech itself. If not, I will be reading a transcript and commenting on it. You can count on that.

UPDATE:

Yahoo! News puts out an article on this issue, stressing a possible deployment of the National Guard: Bush Weighs Deploying Guard to U.S. Border. In the article, it states: “Bush’s speech Monday night is intended to build support for broad immigration overhaul by taking substantive steps to secure the border.” Still, I wonder just how much he will emphasize border security.

Despite earlier sentiments I might have had, I am weary of putting deploying 3,500-10,000 troops on the border. “Defense officials said the National Guard may be used only until significant additions to the existing civilian border patrols can be fully funded and completed.” We should make sure that those existing civilian border patrols are funded. If you don’t do that, you run into the same kind of trouble you get when you have soldiers instead of cops. Frankly, we shouldn’t need troops.

Senator Cornyn gets it right here: “‘We need to beef up those (border) operations and the cost will be substantial,’ said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, in an interview. ‘People are just not going to accept comprehensive immigration reform unless they are assured the government is going to secure the border. People have lost confidence in the federal government because they simply haven’t addressed this in a dramatic and effective way.'”

These immigration protest pictures from AP and Reuters are great.

Check out this lady. She’s holding a sign that says “immigrants are humans.” Well, duh, but illegal immigrants aren’t citizens. There’s a difference. There’s a notion of sovereignty that we must pay attention to.

I decided to pay a visit to her website, “WorldCantWait.Org.” Guess what the world can’t wait for? To drive Bush out! It’s a supremely anti-Bush site, which I found extremely ironic. Bush is for a guest worker program and all that jazz. What drivel.

On the bottom of this picture and in this picture, you can see the logo from that “World Can’t Wait” site. It looks as if it’s been translated into Spanish. How silly! They all hate Bush so much! Even though he’s for a guest worker program? Here too. I wonder if the silly World Can’t Wait people just plopped themselves in the rally to pretend as if all the immigrants supported their cause.

Here’s a wonderful picture of a kid waving a Mexican flag, something you’d probably never find in the LA Times or NY Times.

I’d like to know more about this story: “The march is dedicated to 14-year-old Anthony Soltero. Soltero committed suicide after allegedly being threaten by a school official for participating in immigration protests.” I’ll do some research tomorrow.

Check out the Full Rights For All Immigrants sign, which demonstrates the entitlement mentality. Yeah, why don’t you keep on marching up to Canada and demand free healthcare too!

Yesterday, I commented on a New York Times article about how new restrictions to require ID in order to get Medicaid may hurt people other than illegal immigrants.

Well, check out this paragraph from Slate: “The NYT tries to justify the arbitrary timing of its Medicaid lead by pegging it to the immigration debate. The story, however, focuses on poor people who are in the country legally but may be denied benefits because they lack documentation. Those who may lose their medical coverage include African Americans and Native Americans who never received birth certificates and don’t have passports, as well as elderly patients who may not understand the new requirement. After letting your outrage brew for 22 paragraphs, the Times mentions that the government is working on a policy to accommodate the needs of these groups.”

The New York Times’s brouhaha over this Medicaid policy may actually be a non-story. The bill doesn’t go into effect until July 1st and so I don’t know if this will even be an issue by then.

Anyway, thinking about it some more, I’m still not sure what to think. It all depends on how they actually verify citizenship. If kids grab fake IDs all the time, I’m sure an illegal immigrant can grab one. Furthermore, if these illegal immigrants are “living in the shadows,” how are they getting Medicaid? I’d like to see some data on the impact of illegal immigration on Medicaid. Of course, I’m still of the mind that if we enforced our laws in the first place, we wouldn’t have this problem.

According to the article Medicaid Hurdle for Immigrants May Hurt Others, new requirements to have ID may harm older people and Native Americans, along with illegal immigrants. When dealing with this problem of illegal immigration, proceed with caution. That’s part of the conservative way, anyway. I’m not sure how much I can support this measure if it ends up costing hospitals more. If we enforced border security in the first place, we wouldn’t need laws like this.

I thought I had come to a conclusion. Regarding illegal immigration, I was convinced that the most sensible, realistic political solution, for the GOP at least, is a phased plan that includes a fence, penalties for employers, and then amnesty for illegals after a number of years. That was the short-term, GOP don’t lose the midterms, political solution. However, that solution is not necessarily the right solution. I have renounced that position and discovered a new, radical, positive, truly American vision. You will probably be surprised to find out that I now favor open borders.

To understand, you must accompany on this journey in transcending the realm of purely political thinking. Today, Lloyd talked about the symbolic implications of a wall. If we build a wall, it says: The American Dream is for us and no one else. It encourages a bunker mentality.

Glenn Reynolds brings up the idea of annexing Mexico. When I really think about it, does opening the borders really mean we’ll be overloaded with a flood of Mexicans… or does it mean something else? If we enacted open borders that were two-way, we would see American businesses and entrepreneurs flooding into Mexico, in fact. There’s opportunity for all sorts of factories and development. If it were two-way, we would not face a sort of death by demography, but something that would actually be quite good for America, I think.

Agree with the war in Iraq or not, there’s something to be said about exporting democracy to another country — to exporting our ideals. Part of the American ideology is not that this dream is only meant for us: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And is that not what these immigrants, legal or otherwise, seek? Pursuit of happiness? It doesn’t seem to make sense to me, considering the notion of sovereignty, that people are entitled to be American, but it is true that all people are endowed with our same dream.

I’ve been faced with a cognitive dissonance lately. I’ve been thinking with an “under siege” mentality. I think “These people are not entitled to these things.” Yet, the message of America as a beacon of hope in the world remains strong. It remains the core of my nationalism. I struggle to reconcile these within my mind. I want to think radically, and then I realize that there really is nothing new under the sun.

We live in a time of sequels, just check out our movies if you don’t believe me. We got Bush II and Gulf War II. I think it’s time for Manifest Destiny II. It should be our goal to expand the American ideal across the Western Hemisphere and the world. I’m sure we could twist the Monroe Doctrine enough that it says just that.

If we really believe in the universality of our ideals, then we should not worry about a “Mexican invasion.” Tell me, what ideals does Mexico espouse that can be stronger than ours? We are stronger and will remain stronger because America is not reliant on demography. America is more than a place. America is more than America. America is an idea more than anything else. Of freedom, of democracy, of hope and promise, of everybody being able to achieve what they dream of to the best of their abilities.

Now is not the time to hunker down, especially not in these times of peril. Now is the time to expand. Now is the time to prove that what we believe is right. We also face a war of ideology against Islamofascists, and we must prove that we are a true democracy. We must prove to them that they are the hypocrites, not us. We must prove to them that our ideas work best, not their twisted perversions of God and faith. We must prove that America really is America.

In that sense, we face a deeper threat than any our nation has faced before. In the Civil War, we faced the separation of our Union, but we pulled through and freed the slaves. In WWII, we faced an external threat. During this War on Terror, we face an enemy that does not have the physical strength to defeat us for it is an enemy that is psychological in nature. In facing this enemy, we face the danger of becoming that very same enemy. We risk not being destroyed by others, but destroying ourselves, destroying the very fabric of America.

I’ve had a thought come to me several times, and it applies to all realms of warfare: You must define the enemy before he defines you. In this War on Terror, we are losing because we are letting the enemy define us. The rest of the world does not love us, and they don’t love the American ideal. It’s time to change that, and it starts here, right in our own backyard. It starts with Mexico.

Open the borders. However can the weaker defeat the stronger? I don’t think it will end up with a Mexican takeover of the US. Instead, it will be a US economic takeover of Mexico.

Indeed, the opening of borders contains a truly conservative ideology within it. Mexican workers will send remittances back home, which helps them economically more than foreign aid. We don’t want to hand people in our own country welfare checks instead of letting them work for it. Why should we restrict this policy domestically? Does it not make sense to let them work and build up their country themselves?

And with a border open two-ways, our businesses will also travel into Mexico. They will further the development and the Mexican people will be deeply indebted to America.

To my readers, I implore you to always think bigger, as I am attempting to do. Opening the borders is not an act of destroying our sovereignty. Instead, it is a de facto annexation of Mexico. We will not alienate the Latino people as the Europeans have alienated the Arabs living amongst them. We will not tell them that they have no right to aspire to become what we are. We will let our neighbors embrace the American Dream. And once Mexico has gained, we will extend this throughout the Western Hemisphere… until the spectre of socialism is finally abolished. Until the people abandon Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Until the people realize that America truly believes in what she says.

I am young and will not trap myself in the ideologies of my predecessors. No, I tell you, when indeed I become a politician, I will still not let myself become trapped.

I hope to become one who can transcend the traditional framework, and to be able to communicate that to everyone.

In calling it Manifest Destiny, I mean not to invoke an American arrogance and exceptionalism. If you’ve read any of what I wrote, my message is not one that excludes. My message is one of hope for all people.

Psst… let me let you in on a little secret… I’m actually okay with amnesty for the current illegals… I think you can get most of the Republican base to put up with it too…

You wouldn’t guess it from my writing but I think amnesty is sensible… Then why the tough talk, right? Keep listening…

I’m doing this because if the GOP base doesn’t talk tough, we’ll end up with a repeat of 1986… So, if you want us to put up with an amnesty, convince us that it won’t be a repeat of 1986… Get it?

Translation: Build a wall, and then we’ll talk… No really, guarantee it… Build the wall first… Secure our borders first… Then, we can sensibly agree to amnesty instead of deportation… In the spirit of forgiveness, I would be okay with amnesty… After all, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, right?

Still… There’s a reason why this is a secret… Between you and me, amnesty is fine… but you can’t let anyone know because then they won’t secure our borders… They’ll give amnesty and let future illegals flow into the country…

Alright, wall first… then we can “compromise”… until then, more tough talk…

I’m going to pull from another article from the New York Times to show the latest propagandist language from illegal immigration activists. This one’s called Across the U.S., Growing Rallies for Immigration by Robert D. McFadden.

Check out this backward language: “The crowds at many of the protests also cheered speakers who denounced a system that has driven more than 11 million illegal immigrants into shadowy lives of subterfuge”

Wait, so these people come into the country illegally, and they’re saying the system forced them underground? It’s not the system that’s forcing them into such a life; they’re the ones that came in illegally. It’s like somebody who robs a store. If you live your life on the lamb, it’s not the system that’s forcing you to live a life of subterfuge.

See, they think they have a right to an American citizenship: “Demonstrators flying banners of immigration reform marched in cities across the nation yesterday to demand citizenship and a share of the American dream for millions of illegal immigrants who have run a gantlet of closed borders, broken families, snake-eyed smugglers and economic exploitation.” They think they have a right to live here, but they don’t. They don’t have that right anymore than I have a “right” to live in Mexico. They’re demanding citizenship, but they have no right to that citizenship, especially if they came in here illegally. No one is forcing them to live in the shadows. They have the wrong idea. You can’t demand citizenship from any nation you want and then say you’re forced to live in the shadows if you don’t get it. If a kid demands candy from his parents, does that mean he has a right to that candy? Does he then say that his parents oppress and starve him if they don’t give him that candy? Of course, to make this analogy truly proper: This kid is demanding candy from somebody else’s parents!

It’s not the system that’s wrong, unless you’re against the idea of a nation-state. Then, of course, you must ask yourself, “Who the hell is going to protect my rights if there’s no nation-state?”

Watch out again for the stupid “illegal immigrant rights” equals “civil rights” propaganda! Check out this NY Times story, Immigrants Rally in Scores of Cities for Legal Status, by Rachel L. Swarns. For some reason, the New York Times thought it would be cool to reprint this quote:

“‘We are in the situation that Rosa Parks was in several years ago,’ said Mr. Rodriguez, who works in the landscaping business. ‘Enough is enough.'”

They really want to hammer home that point, eh?

Well, I can repeat myself too. Even though, “some marchers invoked the tactics and slogans of the civil rights era,” their rallies have nothing to do with civil rights. Civil rights belong to citizens. That’s not being xenophobic. That’s a FACT of SOVEREIGNTY. The United States is not a sovereign entity if everyone is entitled to our benefits. They just don’t understand the notion of a nation, or the notion of laws. That’s why illegal immigrants are a threat to our sovereignty. What happens when illegal immigrants can march in your country and change your laws?

I’m such a tease. I said I was going to show out and out bias, but it’s really not so bad as that. Let’s look at these two paragraphs together.

Paragraph one: “The rallies are coming at a time when Congress — and indeed, the nation — seems torn about what to do about the burgeoning numbers of immigrants who are coming into the country every year.” Alright, so the nation is torn about what to do about these illegal immigrants who storm into our country and then demand things.

Paragraph two: “A poll released today by The Washington Post and ABC television showed that 75 percent of Americans believe United States authorities are not doing enough to stop illegal immigration.”

So let’s see, 75% agree that we’re not doing enough to stop illegal immigration. 75% of the people want something done! Even though 3/4s of the people agree, the New York Times says that the nation is torn. To me, it seems pretty fucking obvious what the American people want: Enforce our laws and secure our borders.

Message to Congress: You shouldn’t be torn. 75% of the people! Hello!

What’s up with all this obfuscation?

Coming up tomorrow: Beautiful, beautiful satire.

Required reading for today: Immigration Advocates Rally Around U.S. by Maria Newman of the New York Times. From it, you can glean the latest propaganda techniques from the pro-illegal immigration groups.

The first important propaganda technique is the tying of illegal immigration to civil rights.

It’s interesting that the New York Times saw fit to print this paragraph twice:

“We are in a situation that Rosa Parks was in several years ago: enough is enough,” said Fabian Rodríguez, 38, who came here from Mexico and now lives in the Atlanta suburb of Norcross and works as a landscaper. “I want things to work out in our favor, or we go back to our country. But we can’t keep living the way it is now.” They were supporting immigrant rights nationally and protesting state legislation awaiting Gov. Sonny Perdue’s signature that would require adults seeking many state-administered benefits to prove they are in the country legally.

Once on the first page, and once on the second page, eh? I guess they really want to hammer home that civil rights connection. I bet the NY Times will change this sooner or later, but I took screenshots to put in here later.

Also, see the latest technique in this paragraph:

“There were many signs here that marchers were aware of the South’s history as the cradle of the black civil rights movement. At the beginning of the march, demonstrators held a banner that spanned the width of their procession that read, ‘We have a dream too.'”

Let’s consider the irony of this propaganda technique. Civil rights? Rights that belong to… citizens? They’re not citizens. They don’t have “civil” rights when they enter this country illegally. Our government has no obligation to protect them.

The next propaganda technique is that of controlling the crowds and telling them to wave American flags, even though they don’t think of this as their country.

You will see that here: “Most of the marchers carried American flags, as the word has gone out to demonstrators over the last few weeks over the Internet and flyers that they needed to show more willingness to assimilate, although some carried flags from their home countries of Mexico, Honduras and Nicaragua.”

The NY Times says most marchers carried American flags; however, the LA Times has already lied about flags. Furthermore, if you look at the pictures included with the article, you will see a lot of red, white, and blue. You’ll see a kid wrapped in an American flag with the Washington Monument as a backdrop. Aw… gives you the warm fuzzies, don’t it. But wait, let’s take a closer look at the first picture. That’s not even an American flag. It’s a flag of Puerto Rico. Alright, Puerto Rico’s part of America… I’ll give them that, but I still see a lot of Mexican flags. Note the Mexican flag almost hidden by the “USA Built By Immigrants” sign they obviously wanted to highlight.

Another note… it’s interesting how the NY Times says “Some of the marchers invoked the tactics and slogans of the civil rights era, and others were trying out a new voice for an emerging constituency that in the very recent past has hidden from authority because of their lack of papers, afraid to speak up, willing to work for wages that American citizens will not accept” when someone’s holding a sign that says “Raise minimum wage.”

The next propaganda technique is related to the first technique. That of the language of “rights.” As I said earlier today, the language of “immigrant rights” is a crock.

The first paragraph of the NY Times article sets up the language of “rights”: “In rallies that appeared to be exceeding the expectations of organizers and the police, hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their supporters marched today in more than 100 cities throughout the country, casting off the old fears of their illegal status to assert that they have a right to a humane life in this country.”

No, they do not have a right to a humane life in this country. They have rights in their own country, not this one. No non-citizen is guaranteed American rights. No one has the “right” to move to America.

More language here: “marchers carrying signs about their rights and the competing bills in Congress.” Watch out for signs talking about “rights.”

More from the double-paragraph: “They were supporting immigrant rights nationally and protesting state legislation awaiting Gov. Sonny Perdue’s signature that would require adults seeking many state-administered benefits to prove they are in the country legally.” These people are not entitled to any of our states benefits if they are not citizens. It flies in the face of the notion of a sovereign nation-state. Does an American have the right to free healthcare in Canada? No! Then, a Mexican doesn’t have the right to any healthcare or welfare in the USA.

So, these are the three latest propaganda techniques of the illegal immigration lobby. They speak of immigrant rights, as if they have a “right” to live in our country. They tie this to civil rights. This makes no sense because civil rights are conferred to citizens, not illegal immigrants. This is why they are a threat to our sovereignty. Then, they fly American flags, as if they really cared about America, when they don’t. Otherwise, the guy the NY Times quotes wouldn’t mangle the notion of civil rights by tying his movement to Rosa Parks and then saying, “I want things to work out in our favor, or we go back to our country.” [Emphasis all mine] Yeah, they’re all American… yeah sure.

I have highlighted the propaganda techniques of the movement, but in my next entry, I want to reveal the PURE OUTRIGHT BIAS from the NY Times itself.

I don’t understand the concept of “immigrant rights,” especially since it really refers to “illegal immigrants.” It’s quite simple, really. If you break into my house and decide you want to live there, you have no right to demand that I serve you breakfast. You have no right to demand that I give you a job cleaning my house if you have broken into my house. I don’t care how hardworking you are or what kind of family you have to feed — you broke into my fucking house. By coming into the country illegally, you have broken into the house that is America. And if I really want to compare it to illegal immigration, it’s as if you broke into my house and trashed my front yard as you came in. Illegal immigrants are trashing the ecosystems along the border. Then, once you come into my house, I relent and say, “Okay, you’re not that bad; I’ll let you work,” and then 11 million of your friends come a-knocking on my door.

I don’t understand how anyone can’t figure out that picture. It shows an inherent disrespect for the laws of our country. People think everything’s a “right” these days. No one has any “right” to come to America. Unfortunately, life isn’t fair. If I’m a poor orphan kid, I have no right to break into a rich guy’s house and demand that he raise me. We’ve got a country to keep running, and you can’t just let everyone in here.

This shows us how bad the problem really is : “Asked whether she was afraid to parade her undocumented status in front of a massive police presence, she laughed and said: ‘Why? They kick us out, we’re coming back tomorrow.'”

They don’t care about our laws.

And after this next quote, I’m almost tempted to say, “Fine, let’s codify an underclass.”

“‘We all know pay is not the same everywhere and lot of people won’t work for the minimum here, so if they won’t take the job, what’s the problem?’ said 47-year-old Jose Salazar.”

Again, they don’t understand our laws.

Taken all together, I don’t think I’m over-reacting when I say that a serious threat is posed to our sovereignty. Or at least to the border states. If you keep marching in our streets waving foreign flags, it’s going to get ugly. I have a feeling things are only going to get worse.

Hooray: “Landmark legislation offering eventual citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants suffered a potentially fatal blow Friday in the Senate.” — Immigration Overhaul Obstacle May Be Fatal

The AP unintentionally tells us what this immigration bill in the Senate really is: Amnesty for illegals. The American people don’t want illegal immigrants pouring through our borders. We want secure borders. Granting amnesty rewards people for breaking the law and encourages future law-breaking. We already gave them amnesty in 1986. It’s time to close the borders now.

Forget talks of a compromise bill. The only compromise involved in that kind of bill is our security. Secure our borders first. Then, we’ll talk.

I’m sure some people don’t find it as funny, but the ridiculous bias is laughable in this LA Times article, Migrants Find a Gold Rush in New Orleans. It talks about the illegal aliens flooding into New Orleans, and in the process tries to paint a positive light on all of illegal immigration.

First, I just can’t help but feeling them attempting to force the warm fuzzies through me: Oh, these illegal immigrants can’t be that bad; they’re rebuilding the city of New Orleans. You might give the LA Times the benefit of the doubt, but wait until you hit this line: “As the Senate debates new immigration laws and marchers demonstrate across the country, these immigrants offer another reminder of the country’s reliance on undocumented labor from Latin America.” Our country’s reliance? When only 5% of our workforce is foreign, which means a lower percentage is illegal.

Then, the LA Times makes an oddly framed claim: “While the South’s feeble economy, racism and xenophobia kept out new people and influences, New Orleans took in waves of newcomers — Italians, Greeks, Germans and Irish — in the decades before World War I. Later arrivals came from Honduras, Cuba and Vietnam.” First off, they’re implying that racism and xenophobia are the only reasons for limiting immigration; they’re subtlely painting their opponents as racist xenophobes. Second, were these legal or illegal immigrants? If we are really so reliant on undocumented Mexican labor, we must wonder why those previous immigrants probably came in legally. Next, these immigrants were eventually assimilated into American culture. Illegal immigrants demonstrate a disrespect for our laws, and therefore, we have no reason to believe that they will assimilate into our society and protect our Constitution. The situations are completely different, but the LA Times is implying that they’re the same.

At least the LA Times could have a progressive bias instead of an illegal immigration bias. My irony meter went off when I came across this passage: “But beginning in the 1970s, the port downsized, businesses left town, wages fell, welfare rolls and crime rose as the public education system collapsed. A black underclass took low-skilled, low-wage jobs. Fewer immigrants moved to town.” [Emphasis mine.] Don’t you get it? Since all the black people left after their homes were destroyed, now we need Mexicans to do the dirty work. We’re replacing one underclass with another underclass.

If the LA Times was really liberal, they’d care about one underclass being replaced with another underclass. What’s the LA Times real agenda? Why are they trying to defend illegal immigration? Is it because they have illegal immigrants working for them, mowing their lawns and cleaning their houses? Alright, that’s not fair, that’s not fair on my part at all, but I wonder.

Let’s dig deeper. Next, the LA Times says, “The rest of the South, meanwhile, became what New Orleans had been: Atlanta, Memphis, Nashville and Charlotte saw tens of thousands of Mexicans arrive, taking jobs in hotels, restaurants, construction and landscaping. Mexicans slaughtered pigs in Guymon, Okla., and made carpeting in Dalton, Ga. Historians call their arrival the largest influx of foreign workers to the South since the days of slavery.”

When the passages I’ve quoted are looked at together, we see the LA Times’ story is based on a false logic. First, our country’s economy is reliant on undocumented labor, according to them. They imply that the New Orleans economy was bustling because of immigrant labor. They imply the South in general were bustling because of immigrant labor. However, they say the South’s “feeble economy” discouraged immigration. New Orleans’ down-sizing discourages immigration. So, was the economy reliant on immigration? Or was immigration reliant on the economy? Taken in context, how can they make the claim that our country is reliant on illegal aliens?

I’ll stop now. This article is ridiculous. Our country is in no way dependent on undocumented migrant labor. Pure bullshit.

“Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again” — President Bush

In 1986, Congress granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who had already been in the country for some time, and Congress promised to clamp down on future illegal immigration. In 2006, Congress plans to put illegal aliens on a path to citizenship and increase border enforcement in order to clamp down on future immigration. Is anyone else getting an odd sense of deja vu?

Look, Congress, we already granted amnesty in 1986. You promised to stop illegal immigration after that. Instead, we have 12 million new illegal immigrants. You’re not going to fool the American public again. The time for amnesty is past. Do what you promised to do 20 years ago. Stop the illegal immigrants.

“Look, slaves pick our cotton. Slaves work for free. Look, I’m not happy about slavery. But do you want to pay an extra dollar for your fabulous cotton T-shirt? I know I don’t. I know the American people are not going to pay an extra dollar for their cotton T-shirts in order to free the slaves. That’s economics. It’s not fair, but you can’t fight economic demand,” so said the economics professor.

Say, I gots an idea! Howzabout instead of putting illegal aliens on a path to citizenship, let’s create a permanent underclass of immigrant workers! After all, they’re only here to do the jobs we don’t want to do, right? We’ll create a class of people that can work below minimum wage just so we can get our strawberries cheap! That sounds fair and just to me! And if anyone says it’s not fair, well, you can’t fight economic demand. No matter what you do, they’ll come anyway. And we know that no American would ever take those jobs (forget the large percentage of workers that aren’t illegal). So, why not just make them a permanent underclass so we can get cheap houses and strawberries! Yay America!

This crazy fun time was partly inspired by this MSNBC article: Economics of immigration could defy laws. Honestly, if the businesses had their way, they’d be perfectly happy with a permanent underclass paid below minimum wage.

The problem after 1986 wasn’t exactly purely economics. The laws weren’t enforced, and they aren’t now being enforced. All the economic factors in the world wouldn’t let illegal immigrants through if we built a fence, instituted a draft, and patrolled our borders with soldiers. That’s a bit extreme, but it’s true. I wonder if we had enforced our laws in the first place, would we have as big a problem with illegal immigration?

The economic status quo is also malleable. We’re paying prices for gasoline that we would’ve found outrageous not too long ago. We also have to wonder about the true cost of things. Sure, I’m paying less for a fruit. Yet, my tax money might go to your child’s free lunch at school because you’re getting paid peanuts. Hm…

At least the article did have the gall to admit: “While illegal immigrants play a crucial role in the economy, their importance is sometimes overstated. Foreign workers account for less than 5 percent of the nation’s labor force. They are concentrated by industry and geography in ways that would cushion the larger economy should they removed from it. While their labor affects the prices consumers pay for some goods, it is but one component.”

Yet, the thesis of the article seems to be the all-powerful strength of economics in driving illegal immigration. Doesn’t that concession undermine the point that we can’t fight the “tremendous economic demand for illegal immigrants”?

Moreover, the article explains where the demand is coming from: “The reality, though, is that given the motivations of the businesses and workers at its center, regulating the flow of workers at the periphery of the economy will be very difficult, whether or not immigration is legal, experts say.” Although the article starts with the lovely tale of the employer who hires immigrants because he thinks his customers won’t pay extra, the real motivation to hire illegals comes from the motivation of businessmen to not have to pay as much for wages. We must realize that if it were up to businesses to decide everything, we probably wouldn’t have a minimum wage in the first place. I’m sure there are some people who agree with that we shouldn’t, but I bet the majority of Americans agree that there should be a minimum wage. So, why haven’t businesses gotten rid of the minimum wage by having their lobbyists scream about economic factors?

The moral of the story? Don’t accept the inevitability of economic factors. If we choose to clamp down on illegal immigration, it can be done, economic factors be damned. If we punish businesses for hiring illegals, then let’s see what happens to that omnipotent economic demand.

I’ve been developing a certain style to my weblogging, and I’ve been liking it. I feel like my weblog entries have been getting better… except very recently. Lately, they’ve felt silly.

I want to retain the style I’ve been developing, but still talk a lot about immigration. Thus, my goal on this weblog will be to have an open exploration on the topic of immigration. (And other topics too.) All aspects of it, without resorting to talking points of any sort. I will retain an open mind, with one exception. I can’t have an open mind on any thing that harms my country. I will, however, keep an open mind as to whether something will harm the country or not.

I’m young, only 19. I still want to be in exploration mode as to my ideals. That’s not to say I’ll suddenly close my mind when I become older, but I’ll be more sure about certain topics. I think… I dunno… I haven’t grown up yet so I don’t know if it’s like that or not.

“And the Lord said, ‘Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.’ So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore it was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of the earth” (Genesis 11.6-11.9).

I don’t take the Tower of Babel story literally — that people all spoke one language until they were scattered after trying to build this tower. Yet, like other Bible stories, it has some good lessons we can take away from it. I’ve actually brought up the Tower of Babel to make a point about immigration. One lesson you can take away is that these multiple tongues made it difficult for people to communicate. No longer could they build their city. I think the same applies for America. We need one language — English.

That’s not to say we should banish other languages. However, the official language should be English. If we are to teach our children, we should teach them all in English. If we are to conduct business among ourselves, it should be in English. Road signs, street signs, store signs, billboards — all English. It makes it easier for our nation to function, and it makes us function more efficiently.

[EDIT: Woah, I went a little overboard there… Education should be in English, at least.]

If illegal aliens flood into our country (and make no mistake, it is a flood), then it is difficult for them to assimilate. It is less likely they’ll learn English, no? Thus, this population that can’t communicate hinders our productivity, does it not?

At least, those are my initial thoughts. I’m not sure entirely how convinced I am on that point. (However, I am convinced that language is essential for national unity, but that’s another can of worms.) The conclusion raises further interesting issues. Do you think many languages within African nations is a factor in hindering their economic development? (Probably negligible compared to many other factors.) We’ve had troubles in Iraq because of the language barrier. Have there been any strong truly multi-lingual nations?

To me, it seems as if a unity of language is salutary for a nation.

Does anyone else find it kind of fishy that all of the news articles chronicling the illegal immigration issue keep saying that the Republican Party is split?

Read this article from the AP, which I found on Yahoo! News: Bush Pushes Congress to OK Immigrants. Bush meets with Vincente Fox. Perhaps they talking further on the deal to give some of our states to Mexico? I kid.

There are a few startling quotes from the article. First: “Bush is pushing for a guest worker program that would let foreigners in low-paying jobs stay temporarily, which Fox says is a good first step toward some form of legal status for all Mexican illegal immigrants.” Granting legal status for all Mexican illegal immigrants, eh? And yet the New York Times has the gall to tell us that it’s not amnesty. Rewarding people for breaking the law is not amnesty, eh?

The second startling quote you’ll find at the very beginning: “With Mexican President Vicente Fox at his side, President Bush gave Congress a long-distance push Thursday to open the United States to immigrant workers who have been sneaking across the borders to fill low-paying jobs.” I think they’ve got part of it backwards. The reason why illegals get paid dirt cheap is because they’re illegal. It’s because they aren’t citizens, and they don’t have the legal recourse. Are they coming in to fill the low-paying jobs? Or are those jobs low-paying because competition from illegal immigrants forces the wages down?

As I understand it, there are three great dangers that face America: Islamofascism, porous borders, and the looming energy crisis. It doesn’t matter how much we combat Islamofascism in the Middle East, if we leave our borders open. It threatens to bankrupt our border states. It threatens to dissolve our nation. We will lose our country.

We face a danger that I don’t think is getting enough attention: open borders. For once, I can legitimately criticize the so-called mainstream media. The LAT is producing open propaganda in favor of the stream of illegal immigrants. The Republican Party has abandoned the base on this issue. The Party is basically committing suicide, but more on that later. You may think I’m going overboard, but I’m not, and I will illuminate this in further entries.

I like politics. I like commenting on different issues. But this is especially important. It is especially important to combat the pro-open border propaganda. Thus, I will be commenting on different issues from time to time, but I feel as if I will be devoting most of my future entries to this issue for I don’t know how long. Perhaps up until the midterm elections. Perhaps longer.

I never really wanted to commit myself to a certain niche, but I feel like this issue is too important to the solvency of my nation, and there aren’t enough crusaders on this issue. When half a million people rally in LA, and a bunch of them are waving Mexican flags, you have to be outraged. I’m sure as I continue this, lots of people will call me a xenophobe and a demagogue. It’s not about being anti-immigration. It’s not about being anti-Mexico. It’s about being pro-America. It’s about being pro-legal immigration. It’s about closing our border for security issues. If you hate America, you have no business being in our country. You are a threat to our sovereignty. Period.

Right now, I’m a small voice with a small audience. This blog has just been the random musings of a 16-19 year old. I plan on being an aggregator of news regarding immigration issues. I plan on being biased. I plan on being pro-security. And heck, why not, I plan on being big… or at least medium.

As I type this, I’m not sure I believe what I’m saying. These are quite lofty goals for such a young person. I’m not even sure I want to commit myself to this, but here I am, taking the first step. I hope you’ll join me as I begin this new journey.

In case you haven’t heard, the Senate recently passed a bill that gave away California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and Utah to Mexico. Of course, the xenophobes are mad as hell, but this is obviously the best solution.

You should learn a little history, xenophobes. These territories were stolen by the United States because we won the Mexican-American War back in the 1800’s. We’ve been taking part in an illegal occupation as bad as the Jewish occupation of Israel. We don’t belong there.

You see, none of these people are illegal immigrants… they’re just returning to their homeland! The xenophobes complain that these people don’t want to learn English or anything. Of course they don’t! They’re still in Mexico!

Believe me, folks. People aren’t here to follow the American Dream. That’s why they were waving so many Mexican flags at their protests. That’s why this group of protesters decided to fly the American flag upside down. That’s why they don’t show any respect for American laws by crossing the border illegally. They’re not all here to support the economy by performing low-paying jobs. Some of them support the informal sector, by dealing drugs. Some of them form boys organizations — also known as gangs. Some of them make up the backbone of our prison system — according to Michael Savage, they are up to 29% of our inmates.

Look, we’re never going to stop the flood of immigrants. There are already millions of illegals in the US. They’re just going to keep coming until the states essentially become provinces of Mexico anyway. That’s why it’s best just to give away our states now to Mexico. Of course, since it’s unfair to Mexico to pay for the infrastructure of all this, American tax dollars will still go to support all the hospitals and schools in the former occupied states.

C’mon you xenophobes. What’s your problem? Obviously, if you give a damn about Mexico stealing stars from our flag, you are a racist.

[Note: This is satire. The Senate has not yet passed legislation that would give any states to Mexico.]

Check out the new immigration bill. Just what the hell are the Republican party leaders thinking? Essential amnesty for millions of illegals? Caving into Democrats? Caving into a rally where illegals waved Mexican flags?

Does the Republican Party represent us anymore? Any fellow Republicans out there reading this? This must be where we make our principled stand. We must tell our party, our candidates, that we will not vote for them unless they stand firm against illegal immigration.

What’s the point of having control of the Senate and House if they won’t stand for our ideals? They say, “Don’t let the Democrats get in, they’ll do worse.” Well, look, we have reached the point where you’re just as bad as the Democrats.

The leaders of the Republican Party have delivered a slap to our faces. We must respond likewise. I don’t care how many big business people you woo. You can’t win without our votes.

Is it too ridiculous to hope for Tom Tancredo in ’08?