Thursday, April 06, 2006

Random Thoughts on Immithusiasm

Teddy Kennedy managed to dredge up a few hours away from his favorite local watering hole to team up with a cabal of GOP senators to craft a "compromise" on immigration legislation pending in the Senate. The most important provision in the bill says, effectively, that the longer you have engaged in law-breaking, the more likely you are to be rewarded. Here are the main provisions:

Illegal immigrants who have been in the country for at least five years could receive legal status after meeting several conditions, including payment of a $2,000 fines and any back taxes, clearing a background check and learning English. After six more years, they could apply for citizenship without having to leave the United States.

Illegal immigrants in the country for between two and five years could obtain a temporary work visa after reporting to a border point of entry. Aides referred to this as "touch base and return," since people covered would know in advance they would be readmitted to the United States.

Officials said it could take as long as 13 to 14 years for some illegal immigrants to gain citizenship. It part, that stems from an annual limit of 450,000 on green cards, which confer legal permanent residency and are a precursor to citizenship status.

Illegal immigrants in the United States for less than two years would be required to leave the country and apply for re-entry alongside anyone else seeking to emigrate.


The best argument immigration enthusiasts have was summed up by New York Mayor Micheal Bloomberg: "You and I are beneficiaries of these jobs. You and I both play golf; who takes care of the greens and the fairways in your golf course?" Ah, a red-blooded populist.

Hospitals may soon be closing throughout the Sunshine State as a result of costs associated with the treatment of illegal aliens. Meanwhile, 84 hospitals have already closed in California, and between 1/4 and 1/2 of the uninsured in America are illegals.

According to the NY Times, 72% of black men in their 20's who lack a high-school diploma are jobless. Hmm, wonder who is doing the jobs they used to do? Yet the black elite continues to support mass immigration.

John O'Sullivan is one of the saner figures in America. Formerly the editor of National Review, O'Sullivan was a victim of a purge in the late 1990's and ultimately replaced by "girly man" Rich Lowry. Here O'Sullivan succinctly dissects the intentions of the United States Senate: "In order to halt illegal immigration, we must legalize it. And in order to enforce the law, we must reward those who have broken it."

It is interesting that Jewish groups are overwhelmingly in support of mass immigration. There is nothing new here, as Jews have typically supported open-border immigration policy. Matt Yglesias tries to explain why this is the case. Steve Sailer responds.

The much underappreciated Jim Pinkerton says that the elite is beginning to fracture in its once solid support of mass immigration: "Finally, the ruling class is suffering dissolution; some members are even switching sides, joining the one-nation-building, border-securing revolution. Writing in the Post, centrist columnist Robert Samuelson declared that the guest-worker program, jointly championed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), was a 'bad bargain' that would have the United States 'importing poverty.' Liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman joined in, denouncing the guest-worker program as 'deeply un-American.' Instead, Krugman offered a Tancredo-esque solution: 'Reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.'" I wish Pinkerton were right, but as I've read the papers and listened to commentary on the issue over the last few weeks, there is near unanimous support for a "comprehensive" solution to the immigration problem and nearly universal condemnation of the House's "punitive" measures.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

IMO the issue of immigration shows the power of racially sensitive political correctness better than any other. No rational case could be made for (effectively) leaving a decision about living in the US up to individual foreigners -- it is madness, akin to national suicide. But because most immigrants are non-white, Whites especially have a difficult time opposing it effectively. Many never even get started on that, partly because they know they'll be called names: racist, xenophobe, nativist, etc etc. Which no one wants to deal with, even if they were intellectually nimble enough to do so.

And some Whites -- Kennedy among them -- genuinely seem to relish playing the great benefactor in the 'white man's burden sense'. It's a rather pathetic spectacle.

Over the last several decades the US has already become 'diverse' enuogh that making the case that America's demographic heritage as a majority white nation is worth preserving has become very, very difficult politically.

So it really looks more and more like the current legislative debate about immigration in Washington is the last stand of majority white America: if some sort of amnesty passes, which is likely, no matter what the dishonest louts call it, then considering all the follow-on, e.g. family reunification etc, the demographic heritage of America as a majority white nation is doomed.

People who think that race/ethnicity doesn't matter, and so the passing of white America won't matter, better hope they are right.

But I seriously doubt they are.

12:11 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home