The passive aggressive selfishness and racism of the open borders crowd *UPDATED*

The next big thing on the political agenda is, again, immigration “reform.”  As someone said, it’s 2006 all over again, right down to the conveniently available, often Communist-provided signs.

The matter might have sat around for a little longer, but Arizona pulled the trigger on debate by looking at its impressive levels of border crime and welfare, and then enacting a law that authorizes it to act within the parameters of existing federal law regarding illegal immigration.  The Progressives (and by now that means most of the loud mouths in the Democratic party) are incensed.  They’re likening Arizona to Nazi Germany for having the temerity to ask people to show their citizenship papers.  Given the point of origin for most illegal immigrants (hint:  it’s not Denmark), those most likely to be asked are Hispanics.  Quell coincidence!

Rush, of course, instantly pointed out the most obvious hypocrisy behind the Progressive hue-and-cry:  Progressives have enacted and strenuously support a law requiring every American citizen to show papers to the IRS or risk a fine; but they are shocked beyond measure that a state rife with crime may want to enforce pre-existing law that allows them to ask people to prove that they even belong in the country in the first place.

“Belonging in the country” is where things really get interesting.  As best as I can tell, the Open Borders crowd is convinced that the illegals here do really belong in the country.  Whether they’re making hopey-changey arguments; or “we Hispanics were here first” arguments (a line of argument that actually applies only to Native Americans, with everyone else being an invader); or “we’ve imposed so much misery on oppressed people of the world we deserve to suffer” arguments, the gist of the Progressive world view is that it’s simply unfair that people south of the Border live in poverty.

For purposes of this post, I’m going to accept the Progressive argument at face value:  it’s horribly unfair that people south of the Border live in countries rife with crime, sexual violence, drugs and poverty, when we have this perfectly nice, clean, relatively safe country just hovering north of them as a perpetual enticement.  And if you buy that it’s all our fault that they suffer so terribly down there, it’s even more unfair.

The easy answer, the answer the Progressive’s espouse, is simply to open the borders and let some of the tired, poor, huddled masses from down south pour in.  Not only will they get to live in a nicer place (if you think urban slums and crime ridden border towns are nicer), but we Americans will be forced to pay a perpetual penance in the form of fewer jobs for legal citizens, higher taxes to cover welfare for illegals, and increased crime rates everywhere illegals are.  We deserve to be punished, right?

What the Progressive’s refuse to recognize is that their cute little game of allow a continuous trickle of illegal aliens over the border is a cop-out.  No matter how many come in here, there are still a much larger number abandoned way back there.  And what’s even worse is that, by allowing utterly corrupt governments (Mexico comes to mind) to have this safety valve, we are giving those governments carte blanche to continue in their reckless, corrupt, abusive ways.  As long as we siphon off the poorest and, sometimes, the most criminal citizens, the same governments that are grossly abusing their citizens continue to get a free pass.

If Progressives actually wanted to make a change South of the Border, they’d close our border and start putting really serious pressure on Latin American countries to start engaging in true reform.  The Mexican government, denied a safety valve (plus the billions of dollars the illegals send home to float the Mexican economy), would have to reform or, probably, collapse.  Clearing out that rot, allow room for true reform and real Democratic impulses, would be the true gift we, as Americans, could give people South of the Border.

Right now, all that the shrill, abusive Progressive rhetoric is doing is propping up tyrants, demagogues, criminals and incompetents.  That the Progressives’ goal is to punish Americans, not to aid Latin American, is made manifest by the fact that they aggressively refuse to help the greater number of Hispanics repair the situation at home, choosing instead to abuse their own country by putting small percentages of Hispanics in ghettos in America, all the while implicitly and explicitly supporting the same horrible regimes that sent these people fleeing in the first place.

UPDATE:  Speaking of Mexico, Michelle Malkin explains how Mexico treats its illegal immigrants.  Unconstrained by PC guilt, it’s not pretty.  Also, it was the Anchoress who said it’s 2006 all over again, and now I’ve got a good link to that effect.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Gringo says

    Book, the link for “impressive levels of border crime and welfare”  ends in “htmlq,” which makes for a bad link.
     
    <!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:””; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>

    /* Style Definitions */
    table.MsoNormalTable
    {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
    mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
    mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
    mso-style-noshow:yes;
    mso-style-parent:””;
    mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
    mso-para-margin:0in;
    mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
    mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
    font-size:10.0pt;
    font-family:”Times New Roman”;
    mso-ansi-language:#0400;
    mso-fareast-language:#0400;
    mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/arizona_just_doing_the_job_the.html

  2. suek says

    >>That the Progressives’ goal is to punish Americans…>>
     
    Disagree…they don’t want to punish Americans, they want to  stuff the ballot box so they can stay in power.

  3. SADIE says

    Five states — New York, California, Texas, Arizona and Florida — are perilously close to losing out on congressional seats because of lackluster participation in the U.S. census.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100428/ap_on_go_ot/us_census_mail_response

    Midway through the page, you eventually get to the point of  the reporter….
    Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, said he was concerned about some skittish Latinos who may refuse to answer their doors, particularly given Arizona’s new immigration law.
     
    …and how you tickle the stimulus and stats and waste millions of dollars  in the process.
    In all, more than 600,000 workers will fan neighborhoods at rates of $10 to $25 an hour until mid-July to query people on the 10 census questions on race, gender and family relationships. It’s part of a government hiring spree the Commerce Department says could alter the unemployment rate by several tenths of a percentage point in April and May.
     
     
     

  4. Spartacus says

    I’m confused.
     
    Maybe it’s because I thought that as a progressive society, we were all supposed to believe in racial and ethnic quotas for everything and work carefully to keep everything balanced.  But if all of our immigrants are from Mexico, crowding out the Ugandans, Estonians, Burmese, etc., that seems really unbalanced.
     
    Or maybe it’s because everyone publicly agrees that racism is bad, but in having such an unbalanced de facto immigration policy, that’s really kind of racist.  (And I know it’s OK to use that accusation in a progressive society because the most progressive folks there are debate pretty much all policy almost exclusively with a combination if accusations of racism and changing the subject.)  (Speaking of changing the subject, sorry about that really bad run-on sentence.)
     
    Or maybe I’m confused because for some reason, I have a silly Monty Python song stuck in my head, and at 44 kbps, it’s hogging all my bandwidth.

  5. bizcor says

    This piece is well written. If Ithought for a minute it would change the minds of some of my family and friends I would share it with them. alas…long ago I realized that if I begin winning the debate on facts, they resort to name calling. Things like racist and Rush compoop, that’s my favorite one. They think it hurts me to be connected to Rush. Heck if it wasn’t for Rush it might have taken me even longer to find your blog. I have also been exploring the links you provide.
    I have made note of this article and how to find it as I will probably want to reference it again. This debate is going to rage on through the summer as I believe the progressives will try use it to their advantage in November. They know they are in serious trouble and need to pull a rabbit out of their hat. Conservatives will have to be artful in their support of Arizona and I believe this article could do it. You offer a real solution. Kudos.
    I will have to credit you as bookwormroom.com as I have no clue what your name is and it appears you would prefer it that way.

  6. suek says

    >>it appears you would prefer it that way.>>
     
    Bookworm  lives in Marin County, and is a self-employed legal professional.  In Marin County, you may not be racist, but barring _Conservatives_ from all social and business activities is not only permitted but encouraged.  Tolerance is a one way street in such places.
     
    Speaking of which…what “race” are Mexicans?  If I’m racist – right along with Book – I want to know what race I’m prejudiced against.  The races I’m aware of are caucasian, semites, negroid, asian and – maybe – American Indian.  That last is pretty iffy.  There must be more races I’m unaware of – what race are indians from India?  And…if all the Americas belong to the native Americans – why do they speak a foreign tongue as their native language?

  7. TommyC says

    Regarding changing people’s view with a good argument: most people simply do not want to change their views.  With them, it doesn’t matter at all how good a case you present.
     
    That said, to me one of the strongest cases to be made that the conservative view is superior to the liberal view is simply this: you can find many, many people (and I am one of them) who started as a liberal and became a conservative.  And such people freely admit it.   Why?  Because they are much more comfortable defending their new conservative views than they were defending their old liberal ones.  But how many people have gone the other way?  Started as conservatives and became liberals.  David Frum may be trying, but he hasn’t quite made it yet.  But the fact is, there aren’t many – not that will admit it anyway.
     
    I became a conservative and a believer at about the same time – they were related.  It was when I came to grips with the fact that I really wasn’t so smart after all.  I wasn’t smarter than God, and I wasn’t smarter than all sorts of people who came before – both intellectuals who put their thoughts into writing, and regular people whose input over the ages has led to our traditions and collective wisdom.  Everything we do (especially at the government level) has unintended consequences.  That is why societies have generally established norms of behavior – over time we have  simply learned that some things work better than others.  Liberals tend to reject all that – they focus on what, in their mind, is the way things ought to be.  Conservatives believe in original sin (or the equivalent) and think that human nature hasn’t changed much over time.  Liberals believe in the perfectibility of mankind, and many think that they, personally,  have already reached that state.
     
    Well, time to get off my soapbox.

  8. says

    The Left and their Democrat tools believe in a Permanent Utopia. That is why they will conduct any atrocities, commit any Evil or Cruelty upon the innocent, because they believe that they will usher in a New Age where the lot of the common man and woman will be improved permanently for the better.
     
     
    A permanent, eternal, everlasting improvement in human nature is worth any cost in lives or blood to them.
     
    All these political policy differences? It doesn’t mean anything to them. They can be for the war or against the war. For the surge or against the surge. It does not matter. Their ultimate goal of Utopia will remain, regardless of how you try to argue with them about politics. Because it is not politics they wish to win.

  9. suek says

    >>Liberals believe in the perfectibility of mankind, and many think that they, personally,  have already reached that state.>>
     
    Heh.
     
    >>It was when I came to grips with the fact that I really wasn’t so smart after all.>>
     
    Sounds like you learned both wisdom and humility…

  10. TommyC says

    Wisdom and humility?
    Well, let’s put it this way. I certainly enjoyed the days when I was so much smarter than all the rubes.  But now I prefer being one of the rubes.  I enjoy the company so much more.

  11. SADIE says

    most people simply do not want to change their views
     
    I wonder how many of us started as liberals and evolved as we grew older.  It’s not so much that ‘they’ don’t want to change their views – they can’t, they’re trapped in a time warp and unable to put their childhood fables away while accusing others of  being Bible huggers for starters. To change a view is to examine yourself and belief system. Then the really hard work begins, you have to admit that everything you subscribed to was wrong or at least, not correct.
     
    They diminish the importance of  faith and have instead, elected themselves, unions and politicians,  the deities of social justice.
     
    Is it any wonder they believe in  Che, Castro and Chavez – one more godless than the next.
     
     

  12. bizcor says

    <<you can find many, many people (and I am one of them) who started as a liberal and became a conservative.  And such people freely admit it. >>

    Winston Churchill had a quote that I am having difficulty recalling correctly…something to the effect that a young man who is not liberal has no heart and and an old man who is not conservative has no brain. I have botched this a bit but that is the jist of it  My point being maybe that’s why liberals can evolve into conservatives but conservatives can’t be liberals. I’m not sure.. have been conservative all my life. I was raised that way. We conserved our resources, we were conservative and polite in our manner, we respected the rights of others and we were fiercely patriotic. Being a “baby boomer” World War II was recent history when I was kid. “Truth, Justice, and The American Way”.  Although we did not regularly attend church we did believe in the Ten Commandments. The Constitution is based on those laws and if the world would only adhear to them we wouldn’t be having these discussions. The Christians, Jews, and Muslims all are decendants of Abraham. The siblings fought one another as siblings do then went their seperate ways taking with them a resentment which over the centuries has deepened to the point one wonders if there will ever be a resolution.

    This wasn’t supposed to go on like this. I like this site. Book, writes a thought provoking blog and then we comment. I feel quite comfortable here. Thanks, Book.

  13. SADIE says

    The Christians, Jews, and Muslims all are descendants of Abraham. The siblings fought one another as siblings do then went their separate ways taking with them a resentment which over the centuries has deepened to the point one wonders if there will ever be a resolution.

     
    Don’t know who said it, but it seems to fit with your thoughts above….
     
    You can choose your friends, but not your family.

  14. TommyC says

    One thing that is generally, but not universally, true about liberals is that it is very important to think poorly of people who disagree with you.  Some conservatives do the same, but it is far less common.  Of course that is why liberals rarely want to debate policies and tend to focus on motives.  It doesn’t matter that their policies have proven ineffective over and over again – because their intentions are good.  It doesn’t matter that conservative policies are effective because their motives are bad.  The key to being a liberal is a feeling of moral superiority.  I certainly felt that way as a liberal.
     
    I think it is pretty obvious that I don’t have a high opinion of liberals.  But the fact is, I just don’t think they have really thought things out.  I don’t consider them stupid or anything like that.  They are just like everyone else – they are sinners and fundamentally they look  out for themselves.  Conservatives tend to realize this and advocate policies that take into account mankind’s fundamental nature.  Liberals tend to not recognize this and advocate policies that benefit themselves while claiming to only be looking out for others.
     
    Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks.  “Because that is where the money is” he said.  Why is there corruption in government ?  Because that is where the money is.  Liberals don’t seem to realize for every government program designed to help people, there are scads of people who are doing nothing but helping themselves.  How much money actually gets to the people supposedly being helped?  This is one of the many reasons that I am in favor of truly limited government – just like the founders intended.
     
    Woops.  I got to monologue-ing again.  Sorry Bookworm – your forum does this to me.

  15. suek says

    >>Why is there corruption in government ?  Because that is where the money is.>>
     
    And power, Tommy.  Don’t forget about the power.  Pulling the levers to make things go…that is almost as intoxicating as the money is.  I grant that if somehow we could take away the money, the power trip wouldn’t be as much fun, but the fact is that given the power, they’ll find a way to get the money.
     
    And don’t worry about monologue-ing…we all do it.   That’s why we come here!  And you just never know what it will lead to…!

  16. TommyC says

    suek – no question that a lot of people get their jollies telling other people what they can and cannot do.  I once served on my borough’s planning board (in NJ).  It was a depressing experience.   Whenever someone needed a variance of any kind, there were several board members who always wanted to demand things in return for granting the variance – we’ll give you a variance if you do this, this, this and this.  So even at the lowest levels of government we have petty dictators.
     
    We recently moved to Colorado Springs, home of conservative extremists, right-wing religious whackos,  and militarists.  We love it here.  I went from having the most liberal (tied) house member to having the most conservative (tied) one.

  17. suek says

    Don’t know where to put this appropriately, so I’ll tag is on here.  There are a couple of things that are particularly interesting about it.  First is the topic itself – it’s definitely an eyebrow raiser.  Second is the number of comments.  Third is the nature of the comments – though I only read about the first 35 or so and then skipped to the last 10 or so.  If you can wade through them, note that many are made by retired officers.  Note, if you will, the fact that there is an operation specifically directed at Tea Partiers, when is then pulled back (the identification of the opponent, not necessarily the operation).  As the commenters question…who, and when.  They suspect direction from sources above the usual level.  Another “trial run”?  After the raid on the Michigan militia group last month, is this another effort to identify more “right wing extremists”? (by the way – it looks like that case might have gone off half cocked – the judge in the case is still pondering the necessity of holding the participants as prisoners, saying that “all I hear is big talk – no proof of any actions – and free speech is protected even if it is threatening.  Prosecution naturally says they can’t tell all at this point.)
    Anyway…for what it’s worth:
     
    http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2010/04/29/army-preps-for-tea-party-terrorists/

  18. SADIE says

    Amazing, well not really, it’s more appalling how POTUS et al is out of sync with the majority of Americans and so in sync with non-Americans [the exception would be Israelis].  Isn’t that what we’re feeling, woe these many months … alienated. Alienated from the process, alienated by verbal attacks, alienated by legislation and alienated by a predetermined-preset agenda that is not inclusive and has no intention of being inclusive.
     
    More to follow. Gotta go find the article.
     
     

  19. SADIE says

    “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply
    cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A
    democracy will continue to exist up until the time that
    voters discover that they can vote themselves generous
    gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the
    majority always votes for the candidates who promise the
    most benefits from the public treasury, with the result
    that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose
    fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

    “The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from
    the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During
    those 200 years, these nations always progressed through
    the following sequence

    1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
    2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
    3. From courage to liberty;
    4. From liberty to abundance;
    5. From abundance to complacency;
    6. From complacency to apathy;
    7. From apathy to dependence;
    8. From dependence back into bondage”


    The rest here. The link in red looks to determine, who exactly said what and when. Whether or not 200 years is more/less accurate, I’ll leave to the more enlightened here.  The broader issue is America different than it predecessors and their failures and how do we stay within our principals, rules and laws.
     
    As an open question:  Where are we?
    http://andrightlyso.com/2008/10/12/life-cycle-of-a-country/
     

  20. BrianE says

    SADIE,
    I recently ran across a similar post, that included statistics from a Professor Olson.
    Professor Olson denies being the author of the statistics, and linked to Snopes which claims the text in post #23 can’t attributed to Tyler (or Tytler), as claimed by the link, and is probably apocryphal.
    It certainly has a ring of truth to it.
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/athenian.asp
     
    This article deals with the authorship of your quoted text.
    http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html

  21. SADIE says

    BrianE….looks like we’re reading from similar pages. Yes, the red link I mentioned, takes you to the Collins page, which I also read. It really doesn’t matter to me, who wrote it.
     
    It just struck me that it should be placed near every election booth across America this November and 2012. If I had the moolah, I’d take out an ad in every newspaper and with more moolah plaster it across billboards in every nook and cranny, too.
     
     

  22. says

    <B>Alienated from the process, alienated by verbal attacks, alienated by legislation and alienated by a predetermined-preset agenda that is not inclusive and has no intention of being inclusive.</b>
     
     
    I got all that when I fought the Democrats over the right of America to win the war in iraq and defeat an evil and fascistic enemy that the Left gave everything to except the kitchen sink.
     
    For those that missed out on this great experience after 9/11, Obama is their way of catching up.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply