Land where my Fathers Died

Aside from the sexist language, it is a clearly nativist statement. If the fathers (meaning the whole patriarchy: father, grandfather, great-grandfather etc ) died in ‘the Land’ the singer clearly is not an immigrant. This is nativism of the highest order. What about all those folks whose fathers died in China, Mexico, India, etc?

I was an illegal alien once– I entered the UK on a tourist visa (which I thought was good for 6 months entry-exit without condition) I really had plans to stay longer — I just thought I’d sort out the paperwork –I had the right to a longer term visa — eventually . Well, traveling back and forth into and out of this European country several times aroused the suspicion of the border guard as I was going from Brussels to London one day. I was grilled as to what I was doing in the UK, my income source, where and in what type of housing I lived etc. Eventually given a reprieve at the last moment to catch the train. But the guard put some sort of code in my passport, took my details and made me promise to sort out the paperwork — which I traveled back to the US to do. In other words, he made me miserable and he made me spend a lot of cash.

You know what, far from being a ‘terrorist’, the official was correct to hassle me. Even though I wasn’t employed in the UK (I worked freelance for US companies) , wasn’t burdening their health system (no right to services), their welfare system(ditto) or school-system (no children with me), and thus must have been a net ‘plus’ in terms of taxes ( like 17% VAT) etc., I had no right to be in the UK, to congest their transport and parks, to place additional demand on the housing stock, and so forth. So I didn’t whine (or whinge) about the treatment, I just did the right thing and sorting my paperwork back in the USA. And had I not been eligible for a longer-term visa, I would have accepted that to.

The countries which send the most legal and illegal immigrants are not particularly poor — Mexico is a middle-income country. Having to return to Mexico is not being sent to the Gulag. And, as we are constantly hearing how hard-working immigrants are, maybe large-scale return of its citizens would do its economy and political system good.

Kyledeb is correct in stating Mark Krikorian is a terrorist. Perhaps the better term or description would be “domestic terrorist”.

It’s a given that mainstream America is not quite ready to admit that people like Mark Krikorian and his ilk are indeed domestic terrorists. History will not judge Krikorian, John Tanton and Roy Beck kindly, they are indeed little more than terrorists. If you want proof, simply take a look at the recent upsurge in hate crimes and right-wing extremism.

How many hate crimes have been perpetrated against immigrants since the anti-immigrant messaging of FAIR, CIS, Social Contract Press and NumberUSA has been picked up by mainstream media.

The fact is that such anti-immigrant messaging appeals to white supremacist groups. These extremist groups have been linked to individuals such as alleged double murderer Shawna Forde, who along with accomplices posed as law enforcement officials, raided a home in Arizona and killed 9 year old Briseña Flores as well as her father.

Forde was not only affiliated with various Minutemen groups, but also actually represented FAIR on a PBS show which discussed illegal immigration. Shawna Forde appears on the immigration panel and is introduced by the shows moderator as a Representative of FAIR. The PBS show aired in 2006 and was held in Yakima, Washington. An excerpt of the show can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErqCmLiWQj8

http://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/it-is-confirmed-1350-iraqi-palestinians-coming-to-the-us/

Oh, I have no doubt. They’re pacts, essentially. In case you didn’t notice, btw, Soros is funding Acorn style groups. Of course, many of the restrictionists are actual grass roots. The response against the senate amnesty under Bush (which he pushed, standing next to Kennedy) was legitimately ground up, and one of the only times I’ve ever seen high power lose.

kyledeb: The only real solution to the migration debate is to give people opportunities in the countries they’re fleeing from.

I agree completely, although as a conservative, I would say “enable people to generate and take advantage of opportunities.”
kyledeb: Until then, I believe we have to act as humane as possible to the migrants that are already in the U.S.

I will not allow my general good will toward people to cloud my judgement on this issue (which is not to say I can’t be persuaded). This is not a matter of keeping people from gas chambers or political persecution. This is a matter of ethnic Mexican nationals taking the assets they have accumulated – moving those assets to a liquid form, and taking it back to their own damn country.

I do COMPLETELY agree about the two tier problem. We should not have a massive worker program. We cannot have second class citizens.

I am NOT a protectionist, however, I don’t think NAFTA is a free trade agreement. I am for liberal trade policies. But the THREAT of protectionism is what keeps our business and political class from using the dynamics of international trade against The People, regardless of the country they live in. I would like to see NAFTA repealed and a return of the tariff “port” system. Tariffs act kind of like a valve or regulator. Or, if you like, an Active Transport mechanism in a cell membrane – creating a dynamic equilibrium with their neighbors.

This could mitigate the draft over Mexico which is preventing her from getting her bearings, and open the possibility of reforming the internal Mexican structure (by her own citizens.)

I think the immigration issue has the potential to change our trade policy. The HB1 visas are totally being abused also, imo.

kyledeb: We probably won’t agree on everything, but I hope we can at least agree on the fact that the only real solution to this problem, is remedying the global inequity that forces people to migrate in the first place.

Yes. But I don’t think that the wealth of the United States is primarily stolen. I think it is the result of a brilliant constitutional structure. And I think most of her sins are the result of instances where we have distorted that structure.

I think her imperial tendencies are due both to poor modifications of the original design and that she is so extraordinarily successful at creating wealth compared to other models that her mere shadow is imperialistic compared the competition.
I think that rapidly cutting her down to size will unleash a world of power plays that will do more damage than good. And I think that allowing twenty million Mexicans who maintain loyalty to the Nation-State on our southern border has a very good chance of destroying her.
And I have argued myself into all those positions.

The discourse has been enjoyable. Enjoy the weekend.

Josh Davenport

I, in turn, hope jtdavenport won’t sign on to that old chestnut of a proposition. Other countries have to fix their own problems — you can’t do other peoples’ development for them. Plus, the U.S. has its hands full with just our own problems.

Talking about “global [in]equity” or the oft-cited “international community” is escapism. Absent extra-terrestrial threats, we’ll never be “one united people,” as the phrase goes. (And if we were, what would happen to the diversity that the left so trumpets and claims that it craves?)

As George Kennan pointed out best, we can’t save the world by letting people immigrate here, but we can ruin our own country by trying (such ruination already being in progress):

“What we shall then have accomplished is not to have appreciably improved conditions in the Third World (for even the maximum numbers we could conceivably take would be only a drop from the bucket of the planet’s overpopulation) but to make this country itself a part of the Third World (as certain parts of it already are), thus depriving the planet of one of the few great regions that might have continued, as it now does, to be helpful to much of the remainder of the world by its relatively high standard of civilization, by its quality as example, by its ability to shed insight on the problems of the others and to help them find their answers to their own problems.”

I’m glad you’re not like the hard headed nativists I usually deal with online. It’s hard to tell the difference sometimes. I know you probably don’t believe it but NumbersUSA, ALIPAC, CIS, and FAIR have a team of commenters that just go around the internet spreading the same old lies without having a real debate.

Here’s the thing most people don’t realize about the U.s. migration debate. In reality there’s nothing that can be done locally about migration enforcement. The only real solution to the migration debate is to give people opportunities in the countries they’re fleeing from. Until then, I believe we have to act as humane as possible to the migrants that are already in the U.S. If you’re for enforcement first like you say, it’s not only bad for migrants, it’s bad for all U.s. citizens to enshrine a system of inequality where two groups of people have very different rights.

I won’t even mention all of the horrific things unauthorized migrants have to deal with in the U.S., like getting ripped apart from their families, getting preyed upon by criminals who know they’re vulnerable and won’t go to police, dying in detention centers from lack of medical attention. This is the side affect of an enforcement first policy, and yes I do believe it amounts to terrorizing a population of millions.

We probably won’t agree on everything, but I hope we can at least agree on the fact that the only real solution to this problem, is remedying the global inequity that forces people to migrate in the first place.

For me, the reason I’m for enforcement first is because I don’t think the left has any leverage over the State to prevent the Complex (and it is a complex – a federal government and big business confuence) from doing the same thing again, and I don’t think the right has any leverage of big business to prevent it from doing the same thing again.

From reading him for a while (I am a conservative), I think Krikorkian believes the same thing.

Personally, I think we need to repeal the 17th. Ever since we changed how we elect senators, the Federal Power head and the Corporate Power head have repeatedly climbed into bed together. It happened right after passage in 1912 – and we got world war one. Then the roaring twenties and a crash – the new deal – and shortly afterwards the international system went haywire – war. All semi-fascist or third way socialist power confluences.

Forget the nativist shit. We are talking about balance of power between Nation-States , and what happens when they get all entangled. Mark Steyn is correct, also, btw, in that massive changes in population distributions are going to wreak havoc on the system.

Regards

You can’t call someone a terrorist for agreeing with the “attrition through enforcement” position and then turn around and complain about name calling. It’s ridiculous.

Fine. I’m not completely hard headed. I’ll agree I can’t complain about the name calling. Still, though, I stand behind my position that “attrition through enforcement” is the equivalent of terrorism. It’s also the nativist solution to everything. Anyone that has just one solution to something as complex as migration flows should be looked upon with skepticism.

You can’t call someone a terrorist for agreeing with the “attrition through enforcement” position and then turn around and complain about name calling. It’s ridiculous.

kyledeb says:
If you can’t prove otherwise, please refrain from the name calling.
Only if you say pretty please….
For someone who is so sensitive to a little innocuous name calling, you are certainly quick to call someone a terrorist. If, as you say, Mark Krikorian says “attrition through enforcement” how in the world do you feel that the logical progression is that he is a terrorist? “Attrition through enforcement” simply means enforcing our laws. Unless you equate enforcing our laws as morally equivalent to, say, the Mumbai shootings, or flying a plane into a building, or decapitating civilians…

I’m not sensitive to it, I just think name calling shouldn’t take the place of rational argument. Actually, “attrition through enforcement” is not about enforcing laws. The whole point of it is actually that there are too many unauthorized migrants to have the law enforced so the only way to force them is to make them so miserable they leave on their own.

I don’t call people names lightly, and I don’t see any other word for that than terrorism. If making millions of people more miserable that the majority world conditions their fleeing from are better than living in the United States is the only solution people like Krikorian have, then they are loony as are the people that defend them.

I never said I had a problem with 1300 palestinian refugees. I have a problem with unfettered mass immigration. I think important structural components of the US that allowed rapid integration (or a melting pot, if you will) during previous mass immigrations are now missing.

Also, I think the imperial engine of the United States – and the West in General – is largely being fueled by a combination of outsourcing production and in-sourcing cheap labor. This has allowed a hidden socialization of costs (which is now emerging).

But back to the cultural imperialism. We can argue about numbers, but in my opinion over 20 million illegal aliens, mostly from Mexico, were present in the US during the peak (under Bush). And their distribution was not random.

I live in a town of 8,000 people in New Hampshire. The cultural apparatus I live in has been largely unchanged – adapting, but maintaining its original flavor – for 400 years. That is, while technology and times have changed, and inputs have been adopted by the apparatus, its still small town. We don’t shit on our neighbors, etc.

And I know a bunch of laborers out of work because california based construction companies are coming in paying illegal immigrants illegal wages under the table. And as a group, those laborers don’t give a damn about the town I live in. Culturally, they’re Mexican. Politically, they’re La Raza.

Our political system is driving a big wheel, where the labor comes in from the south, and capital flows out the top into Mexico, which doesn’t have the institutions to stand up to the scale of these entities. Its the classic trans-national corporation problem.

I’m sick of it.

Regards

July 10th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
______________

Nail on head. Thank you.

Kyledeb, you start off saying “I cannot believe..blah blah blah..” and irrationally, and stupidly, conclude “Mark Krikorian is a terrorist.”
Please tell me you’re a girl. Because while drama queens in general are insufferable, a male one is simply intolerable.

_______________

Really, how is my claim irrational? That’s exactly what “attrition through enforcement” is. If you can’t prove otherwise, please refrain from the name calling. I think it’s pretty clear throughout this entire thread that those supporting Mark Krikorian have no real facts or arguments on their side. You just have a lot of time to be spreading your misinformation.

July 10th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
____________

By your usage of “protecting traditions” as a rationale for opposing immigration, as if the presence of 1,350 Palestinian refugees somehow presents a danger to white American culture.

An emergent model of a cultural apparatus is the dominant model, from what I’ve read. I’m just using a term from higher math. The wiki page on “emergence” sums it up nicely. I like the term because it crosses disciplines.

I agree with your examples of cultural imperialism.

Now, before I ask my question, let me state flat out that I think one can distinguish between Racism and Bigotry on the one hand, and defense of tradition on the other.

By what rules are you placing me in the Racism and Bigotry category? How are you distinguishing me as a xenophobe from someone promoting the protection of traditions?

Kyledeb, you start off saying “I cannot believe..blah blah blah..” and irrationally, and stupidly, conclude “Mark Krikorian is a terrorist.”
Please tell me you’re a girl. Because while drama queens in general are insufferable, a male one is simply intolerable.

Ummmmm….

If Krikorian isn’t an immigration expert, then nobody in the world is.