LibertyVox
07-30-2010, 07:16 AM
Yeah I should've posted in this in the relevant already existing thread, there is no need to create a new thread, but gosh darn it here it is :(:confused::(
Sorry to put you on the spot buddy (AN).
Well, I live in LA, and a lot, if not most, of the people doing the laker rioting are from the same low class ilk as the illegal immigrant supporters. And more people got arrested today than at the Lakers Riots(I was at game 7, I should know)..
And I don't think it is gratuitous use of the word. The overwhelming majority, probably 85-90% of the grassroots of illegal supporters are center left to far left. They may have neo-conservative republican politicians supporting them, but the non-politicos, you average protester, is an ardent leftists. There are very few libertarians at pro-amnesty rallies, while I have seen libertarians opposing amnesty and open borders. There are left wing anarchist types at the events though, quite a few. I bet many were out in force today along with the authoritarian socialist atzlan types.
But most of those people assimilated into the western countries you mentioned, and didn't drain public services. They weren't loyal to their motherland nor did they think the area they immigrated to belonged to the country they came from. I see many little hispanic children walking around speaking Spanish as their first language, it is also subsidized in the public school. So neither the immigrants or their children are assimilating. And also, many of the east/south asians you speak of are anti left wing, rather, they fled left wing tyranny and want nothing of it, most notably the Vietnamese. I know a dozen or so vietnamese, and the one's I have talked to about politics(7 or 8 of them), are right wing republicans.
We cannot afford open borders, illegals are draining the system and driving legal immigrants and native born americans to the welfare rolls when they take low wage jobs. We also cannot afford it politically, which is one of the reasons we need to get rid of birthright citizenship. We cannot afford to have more ideologically aligned leftists voting in candidates who oppose the Conservative/Libertarian Agenda.
I agree with some of what you said such as the first 2 sentences of your last para and others somewhere in between.
Look here's what I see happening, as a Ron Paul classical liberal I personally try not to get washed up on issues which I consider of secondary or tertiary nature, and that would include things like how many illegals are already present in this country, what groups support them, how fast the demographics are changing, how bad and unpatriotic the illegal immigrant supporters come across and so forth. I would rather stick to the crux of the matter because it is the most decent thing to do. Doing so also avoids the unnecessary polemic together with sometimes bigoted sentiments and eventually rather unavoidable collectivist remarks which often come out in topics such as this.
The crux of the matter to me is the rule of law. The law says people coming into this country through sealanes, by air or land have to have proper documentation. That's not unreasonable. The question is why has not the law been ignored, disrespected and kept on the back burner for so long by the politicians?
I hope you see what I'm getting at.
Beware the Incendere
Expedient politicking by career politicians who only care about the rule of law by bending where the popular wind goes are dangerous. Because it would be precisely these politicians who when the time seems ripe would feed off of the brewing confection of discontent by the populace and do escape goating. Pretty soon it is not about applying the rule of law regarding immigration which these expedient pragmatic politicos have ignored, but about Mexicans illegals. This trend and the rhetoric which often accompanies it should concern everyone with fair minded decency.
Something similar happenend after 9/11, every moozlim living, studying and working on an expired visa was rounded up overnight and deported. Now since it is seemingly the right thing to do, what's so disconcerting about it if at all? Well
A) It showed the government is well capable of rounding up people and deporting them if it wants to. The fact that they didn't enter illegally probably made it easier to find them.
B) It showed how your derided left is well capable of rounding up people and deporting them if it wants to.
C) Most importantly: the dangerous trend I spoke off. The problem is not that they sent people back who had continued their stay extra legally, but that they were sent back home precisely because they were moozlims or had origins in Terra Here-Be-Dragonita. This selective application of law is what I find repulsive as should every one who cherishes liberty, not because it happened to moozlims but because it happened at all.
The flying Mexican flag and Aztlan:
I know it is repulsive. In fact I find it outright stupid. What better way of self sabotage than alienating reason and patience of fellow citizens by display of symbols and slogans that scream vulgar xutzpah?
But it is not the illegal immigrants themselves who are mostly part of all this, it is the domestic, modern movements and action groups who indulge in it. Voz de Aztlan or Plan espiritual de Aztlan are local phenomena, not imports from land yonder. And they are all modern and trace their roots to the same period which gave birth to other orgs of similar nature.
Again this point is important, because as said before, we should be ware of a tendency that seeks to sausage a particular group of illegals as something vile and sub human and violent.
Children of Illegals:
Anchor babies. Not a very civil word to use, but does serve its purpose. Again the fault lies with the government policy not with people who exploit a perfectly legal loophole. And if we feel that it is immoral for the public to pay for their kids, we should look at the source of the problem: public education.
Similarly, the dual language multicultural educational approach in some states (I can only think of California though) because of which kids don't learn the national language is not because of the influence that illegal immigrants wield (they don't). It is again due to government policies of cajoling and the political structure in this country which allows for massive amounts of influence to special interest, committees and action groups.
And personally I do believe that the 2nd generation of these illegals do infact speak English and do so fluently (albeit in the local vernacular).
Lastly:
Your point about "other" immigrants who blend into western countries is very simplistic. Of course most immigrants from any quarter I dare say do in fact assimilate, but there would always be segments which won't. This is is especially true if there is a sudden influx of immigrants (legal or not) from a particular area, the ghettoization and collectivist policies of the state. Most immigrants from Easern Europe into Western Europe did assimilate and worked hard, but the largest, most violent crime cartels and hardened mafias in Britian for example also belongs to such demographics.
And right here in this country across the pond:
We always have had problems with hyphenated Americans especially the first 2 generations of Americans who would have dual loyalty to their mother country. Wilson shared that disgust of hyphenated Americans in a much more moribund situation (of mostly western European/ Benelux origin) when he said,
There is disloyalty active in the United States, and it must be absolutely crushed. It proceeds from a minority, a very small minority, but a very active and subtle minority.
He was referring to the National German-American Alliance Direct Action Group (DAG).
So again, it is natural and expected to have this nostalgic love and connection to the mother country by first and maybe 2nd generation immigrants anywhere. Some of them would indulge in retarded annoyance like Aztlan but the danger only lies if they able to manipulate public policy in an unconstitutional/sectarian/unjust way. Again, the solution lies in having a Constitution and state philosophy that doesn't allow for unyielding influence of these special interest groups.
Now, please keep in mind that my rant above does not address you per se nor is it a tit for tat answer to what you wrote. It is just a general impromptu thought process I typed so that you may know where I stand and how I see things. I do that when I need a cathartic break from my own edu macation.
The most important thing is not to let the red meat distract one from devouring the actual steak. So again I repeat:
I would rather stick to the crux of the matter because it is the most decent thing to do. Doing so also avoids the unnecessary polemic together with sometimes bigoted sentiments and eventually rather unavoidable collectivist remarks which often come out in topics such as this.
Tail pieces:
BTW, that also means not letting KFI dumb one down too much, I'm sure you know that radio station since you're California and that includes the slightly digestible John and Ken. NPR might be a better alternative. :D:p
And also, please don't mention libertarians with conservatives in such an unholy fashion. You should know that there is only a dime of a difference between both the major parties. Seriously. The difference is only in tone and the kind of red meat they would throw. Beef vs Mutton.
Both are EQUALLY responsible for bigger government, welfare policies, progressive coercions and the illegal immigration issue/amnesty.
And speaking of tones a true liberal...a classical liberal would always see the progressive left and its more expressed forms: socialism, welfarism with traditional disdain and rivalry; but he would find conservatism and its more extreme forms mercantilism/xenophobic nationalism/ fascism scathingly disgusting especially because of the new found fauxmance of convenience and because in the US, political definitions are often turned on their head.
The progressive left may be the reason for the republic's many diseases, but conservatives (whose ugly head has finally surfaced making the term paleoconservatism a misnomer) are that puss which flows from those festering diseases.
Sorry to put you on the spot buddy (AN).
Well, I live in LA, and a lot, if not most, of the people doing the laker rioting are from the same low class ilk as the illegal immigrant supporters. And more people got arrested today than at the Lakers Riots(I was at game 7, I should know)..
And I don't think it is gratuitous use of the word. The overwhelming majority, probably 85-90% of the grassroots of illegal supporters are center left to far left. They may have neo-conservative republican politicians supporting them, but the non-politicos, you average protester, is an ardent leftists. There are very few libertarians at pro-amnesty rallies, while I have seen libertarians opposing amnesty and open borders. There are left wing anarchist types at the events though, quite a few. I bet many were out in force today along with the authoritarian socialist atzlan types.
But most of those people assimilated into the western countries you mentioned, and didn't drain public services. They weren't loyal to their motherland nor did they think the area they immigrated to belonged to the country they came from. I see many little hispanic children walking around speaking Spanish as their first language, it is also subsidized in the public school. So neither the immigrants or their children are assimilating. And also, many of the east/south asians you speak of are anti left wing, rather, they fled left wing tyranny and want nothing of it, most notably the Vietnamese. I know a dozen or so vietnamese, and the one's I have talked to about politics(7 or 8 of them), are right wing republicans.
We cannot afford open borders, illegals are draining the system and driving legal immigrants and native born americans to the welfare rolls when they take low wage jobs. We also cannot afford it politically, which is one of the reasons we need to get rid of birthright citizenship. We cannot afford to have more ideologically aligned leftists voting in candidates who oppose the Conservative/Libertarian Agenda.
I agree with some of what you said such as the first 2 sentences of your last para and others somewhere in between.
Look here's what I see happening, as a Ron Paul classical liberal I personally try not to get washed up on issues which I consider of secondary or tertiary nature, and that would include things like how many illegals are already present in this country, what groups support them, how fast the demographics are changing, how bad and unpatriotic the illegal immigrant supporters come across and so forth. I would rather stick to the crux of the matter because it is the most decent thing to do. Doing so also avoids the unnecessary polemic together with sometimes bigoted sentiments and eventually rather unavoidable collectivist remarks which often come out in topics such as this.
The crux of the matter to me is the rule of law. The law says people coming into this country through sealanes, by air or land have to have proper documentation. That's not unreasonable. The question is why has not the law been ignored, disrespected and kept on the back burner for so long by the politicians?
I hope you see what I'm getting at.
Beware the Incendere
Expedient politicking by career politicians who only care about the rule of law by bending where the popular wind goes are dangerous. Because it would be precisely these politicians who when the time seems ripe would feed off of the brewing confection of discontent by the populace and do escape goating. Pretty soon it is not about applying the rule of law regarding immigration which these expedient pragmatic politicos have ignored, but about Mexicans illegals. This trend and the rhetoric which often accompanies it should concern everyone with fair minded decency.
Something similar happenend after 9/11, every moozlim living, studying and working on an expired visa was rounded up overnight and deported. Now since it is seemingly the right thing to do, what's so disconcerting about it if at all? Well
A) It showed the government is well capable of rounding up people and deporting them if it wants to. The fact that they didn't enter illegally probably made it easier to find them.
B) It showed how your derided left is well capable of rounding up people and deporting them if it wants to.
C) Most importantly: the dangerous trend I spoke off. The problem is not that they sent people back who had continued their stay extra legally, but that they were sent back home precisely because they were moozlims or had origins in Terra Here-Be-Dragonita. This selective application of law is what I find repulsive as should every one who cherishes liberty, not because it happened to moozlims but because it happened at all.
The flying Mexican flag and Aztlan:
I know it is repulsive. In fact I find it outright stupid. What better way of self sabotage than alienating reason and patience of fellow citizens by display of symbols and slogans that scream vulgar xutzpah?
But it is not the illegal immigrants themselves who are mostly part of all this, it is the domestic, modern movements and action groups who indulge in it. Voz de Aztlan or Plan espiritual de Aztlan are local phenomena, not imports from land yonder. And they are all modern and trace their roots to the same period which gave birth to other orgs of similar nature.
Again this point is important, because as said before, we should be ware of a tendency that seeks to sausage a particular group of illegals as something vile and sub human and violent.
Children of Illegals:
Anchor babies. Not a very civil word to use, but does serve its purpose. Again the fault lies with the government policy not with people who exploit a perfectly legal loophole. And if we feel that it is immoral for the public to pay for their kids, we should look at the source of the problem: public education.
Similarly, the dual language multicultural educational approach in some states (I can only think of California though) because of which kids don't learn the national language is not because of the influence that illegal immigrants wield (they don't). It is again due to government policies of cajoling and the political structure in this country which allows for massive amounts of influence to special interest, committees and action groups.
And personally I do believe that the 2nd generation of these illegals do infact speak English and do so fluently (albeit in the local vernacular).
Lastly:
Your point about "other" immigrants who blend into western countries is very simplistic. Of course most immigrants from any quarter I dare say do in fact assimilate, but there would always be segments which won't. This is is especially true if there is a sudden influx of immigrants (legal or not) from a particular area, the ghettoization and collectivist policies of the state. Most immigrants from Easern Europe into Western Europe did assimilate and worked hard, but the largest, most violent crime cartels and hardened mafias in Britian for example also belongs to such demographics.
And right here in this country across the pond:
We always have had problems with hyphenated Americans especially the first 2 generations of Americans who would have dual loyalty to their mother country. Wilson shared that disgust of hyphenated Americans in a much more moribund situation (of mostly western European/ Benelux origin) when he said,
There is disloyalty active in the United States, and it must be absolutely crushed. It proceeds from a minority, a very small minority, but a very active and subtle minority.
He was referring to the National German-American Alliance Direct Action Group (DAG).
So again, it is natural and expected to have this nostalgic love and connection to the mother country by first and maybe 2nd generation immigrants anywhere. Some of them would indulge in retarded annoyance like Aztlan but the danger only lies if they able to manipulate public policy in an unconstitutional/sectarian/unjust way. Again, the solution lies in having a Constitution and state philosophy that doesn't allow for unyielding influence of these special interest groups.
Now, please keep in mind that my rant above does not address you per se nor is it a tit for tat answer to what you wrote. It is just a general impromptu thought process I typed so that you may know where I stand and how I see things. I do that when I need a cathartic break from my own edu macation.
The most important thing is not to let the red meat distract one from devouring the actual steak. So again I repeat:
I would rather stick to the crux of the matter because it is the most decent thing to do. Doing so also avoids the unnecessary polemic together with sometimes bigoted sentiments and eventually rather unavoidable collectivist remarks which often come out in topics such as this.
Tail pieces:
BTW, that also means not letting KFI dumb one down too much, I'm sure you know that radio station since you're California and that includes the slightly digestible John and Ken. NPR might be a better alternative. :D:p
And also, please don't mention libertarians with conservatives in such an unholy fashion. You should know that there is only a dime of a difference between both the major parties. Seriously. The difference is only in tone and the kind of red meat they would throw. Beef vs Mutton.
Both are EQUALLY responsible for bigger government, welfare policies, progressive coercions and the illegal immigration issue/amnesty.
And speaking of tones a true liberal...a classical liberal would always see the progressive left and its more expressed forms: socialism, welfarism with traditional disdain and rivalry; but he would find conservatism and its more extreme forms mercantilism/xenophobic nationalism/ fascism scathingly disgusting especially because of the new found fauxmance of convenience and because in the US, political definitions are often turned on their head.
The progressive left may be the reason for the republic's many diseases, but conservatives (whose ugly head has finally surfaced making the term paleoconservatism a misnomer) are that puss which flows from those festering diseases.