View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by Selwyn Duke |
March 30th, 2006
Break into America like a thief in the night, fly under the radar when you have to, persevere long enough, and sooner or later some feckless, pusillanimous American politicians will grant you amnesty.
While the invasion of our nation through the southern border continues unabated, our fearless leaders are once again busy cooking up cures that are worse than the disease. The latest scheme is a form of de facto amnesty euphemistically called the “Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act.” And if it passes, it could be America’s final act.
Authored by Ted Kennedy and John McCain, the bill has many elements, the most troubling of which is that it offers people here illegally “a path to citizenship.”
Here’s how it works: creating a “new H-5A temporary visa category,” illegal aliens would have to register with the government, pay two-thousand dollars worth of fines in total, have a criminal background check and pass an English literacy exam. Then, if they were employed, they could apply for citizenship in six years. What’s wrong with this, you ask?
First of all, just like any other plan that allows those who entered our nation illegally to stay, it rewards the very behavior we want to eliminate. It sends a clear message to the world: break into America like a thief in the night, fly under the radar when you have to (and accept government benefits courtesy of the average taxpayer sucker when they’re offered), persevere long enough, and sooner or later some feckless, pusillanimous American politicians will grant you amnesty. Come one, come all. ‘Tis the land of the free ride and a home for the knaves.
When did we forget that rewarding bad behavior begets more bad behavior?
As if this weren’t bad enough, this bill would have a culturally toxic side effect. It would lead to the naturalization of many millions of immigrants in addition to the ones already here illegally, and this could occur during just the next decade. But before I delve further, it’s time for a little background.
For most of our history we were much like any other nation. We understood that if immigration was to be allowed, it must be limited and controlled, ensuring your land’s stability and culture will not be threatened by too great an infusion of incongruous and perhaps unassimilable cultural elements. Thus, while the number of immigrants did fluctuate throughout our history, prior to the mid-1960s our shores saw an average of only about 250,000 annually. Moreover, realizing the importance of safeguarding our culture, we had (since 1924) admitted immigrants in accordance with the “National Origins Act,” which mandated that a given immigrant group would be allowed entry to the extent to which it was represented in the general US population. But all this changed in 1965.
What happened that year? The “Immigration Reform Act of 1965” is what happened. This legislation changed both the face of immigration and that of America, as it caused legal immigration levels to spike upwards to about one million a year. Additionally, it created a situation in which 85% of immigrants now come from the Third World and half from Spanish-speaking countries, factors which have had a jarring effect upon our culture. Press two for Spanish anyone?
Now, you may ask, how is this germane to the current poisoned pill bill? Well, one of the authors of the disastrous 1965 legislation was . . . guess who? Yep, you’ve got it. The poster boy for 24/7 gin mill operation himself, old Ted Kennedy.
But now let’s fast forward to his present attempt at social engineering. Why would the current legislation amount to a prescription for unprecedented immigration?
First of all, it has been estimated that perhaps as many as 20 million illegals currently reside in our nation. Of course, we don’t know how many would avail themselves of the amnesty offer, but let’s say, for argument’s sake, that “only” twelve million ultimately qualified for citizenship. Well, then in six years you’d have twelve million immigrants added to the six million who would have entered legally during that period, the already excessive number allowed by Kennedy’s 1965 brainchild.
But it gets even worse.
Since many of these invaders would be married, upon naturalization they would be able to bring their families here as well, perhaps doubling their number. In other words, we could be talking about increasing our legal population by 8 percent (24 million) or more during the next ten years.
Still, though, there’s more dire news.
The bill doesn’t offer much of substance in the way of proposals to stop illegal immigration, presenting, in typical politician style, nothing but lip service in that regard. But even if it did, with the track record of our government, one involving a wink-and-a-nod steadfast refusal to close the borders, why should we believe it?
Thus, millions more invaders would pour into our land, making her even more “secure and orderly” and creating a “need” for yet another “temporary visa,” another amnesty scheme, another kick in the teeth to law-abiding Americans. And with the pro-invasion lobby buttressed with tens of millions more voting partisans, its momentum would be irresistible. It would be mourning in America.
Of course, I’m sure Kennedy and company will peddle this act with all the salesmanship of a used car dealer. But if the song and dance routine sounds convincing, just consider the bill of goods Kennedy sold us when lobbying for his 1965 piece of genius. According to Peter Brimelow in his piece "The Case against Immigration as We Know It," Kennedy claimed that,
First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. . . . Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. . . . Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia. . . . In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.
I ask you, would you buy an immigration bill from this man? Fool me once, shame on Kennedy. Fool me twice, shame on my stupidity.
And don’t think I’m letting John McCain off the hook. While the Arizona senator was fighting for his country when Kennedy conjured up his first nail in America’s cultural coffin, now, sadly, McCain is most assuredly fighting against it. He appears more and more a true Manchurian candidate. It’s time for the old soldier to just fade away.
The defenders of the Insecure America and Disorderly Immigration Act protest that it doesn’t amount to amnesty, saying that the invaders must admit their wrongdoing and pay a fine. My, my, aren’t we becoming Draconian? I wonder, does this work with other crimes as well? I mean, can I burglarize Ted Kennedy’s mansion and opt for the punishment of confession and a modest monetary payment? Hey, I can issue mea culpas as well as the next guy. And I can even do it in an American accent.
The consequence of coming here illegally is supposed to be deportation. Thus, anything short of that is a form of amnesty. And we should march on Washington with pitchforks. We were promised the immigration levels (already excessive) of the Immigration Act of 1965. To now peddle this legislative sleight of hand – which would cause the nation within our nation to metastasize further – and tell us it’s in our best interests is a true slap in the face.
It’s imperative that we deport the invaders and institute a moratorium on all immigration so we can get our own cultural house in order. The last thing we need is amnesty, and this bill is cultural suicide.
Any politician who supports it should be considered a traitor.
SD@SelwynDuke.com
Visit their website at: http://www.SelwynDuke.com
Responses to "Red Alert: Amnesty for Tens of Millions of Invaders on the Horizon"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Indeed. We have gone from the being a mixing bowl (homogeneous) to a salad (heterogeneous). My apologies to whomever I ripped that analogy off of. Countries do not survive the tensions of multiculturalism. And in the short term, we face risks that are just as substantial. In the summer of 2004, I went to D.C. with my family. We met a man who worked for the border patrol. He informed us that if someone came acroos the border driving the speed limit, he wasn't allowed to go one over to catch him. He also told us that a wave of Arabic people were coming acroos the border at that time. In some places, as many as one in ten people sneaking in were Arabic. You don't hear much about that from the government or the media, do ya? What are a bunch of Arabic people doing in Mexico? If they had any good reason to be here, why would they have to sneak across the Mexican border? The article was good, but I think we have even bigger problems on our hands, namely a border policy that screams "kill me" to any Islamic terrorist in hearing range.
Comment by Shane Atwood | March 30, 2006
I truly hope that this immigration bill does get passed. Then in 5 years when the official language of the United States is Spanish, 50-75% of people living here are illegals and the next two or three 9/11's happen, maybe, just maybe, somebody might have the brains and the guts to do something about it. Ironic isn't it that our politicians want to legalize the 20 million illegals already here, and grant amnesty to future illegals when 80% of Americans want tougher immigration laws? Hmmm. So who elected these morons? And who keeps electing them? Why is Ted Kennedy still in office to do the same crap he did 40 years ago? Until people quit putting these same ineffectual fools into public office, this is the kind of thing that will continue to happen.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | March 30, 2006
Why aren't the 80 percent of legal citizens who oppose illegal immigration marching in the streets? Who will organize us? Somebody, please.
I have written to my senators, one of whom, Sam Brownback, has really let me down. I've always been a strong supporter but he won't get my vote again. I shudder to think of people like me who will, by denying our vote to the people we trusted, end up letting the democrats march right in, but ya know what, I'll suffer the consequences.
(I don't know why this type is so large on my screen. I apologize for taking up space.)
Comment by dianne | March 31, 2006
Wake up ignorant racists!
Nothing will damage our economy and the world economy more than forcing millions of less than legal immigrants to give up their high productivity in the U.S. to go to idleness or low productivity jobs in their countries of origin!
Our standard of living is a function of world productivity. When aggregate productivity goes down, the aggregate standard of living goes down.
Forcing these immigrants out of their jobs could make the Great Depression look like the great vacation- especially in states like Texas and California which, if a go home law was effectively enforced, would lose 15-20% of their population!
Listening to a lot of talk radio these days, I feel like I'm living in Germany on the eve of the Holocaust. Suddenly the solution to all our problems is- "let's get rid of all those Mexicans".
But for the grace of God each of us could have been born on different soil. Why should freedom to pursue opportunities, especially in the land of the free, be limited to those whose accident of birth put them here?
Let's impose a reasonable fine on those who have broken the law to get here and let them get on with their productive lives. Then allow residence to anyone who can pass a background check and pay the entrance fee in the amount they have bid for a residence permit in regular and plentiful on line auctions of same. The deficit will shrink from the fees while the social security system is shored up by millions of younger workers.
The fact that people want to come here is an opportunity- not a problem.
Comment by Tom Kelly | March 31, 2006
Yes, I suppose we've got to be smart enough to do what the Native Americans weren't smart enough to do centuries ago when the "Invaders on the Horizon" started arriving, namely, my European ancestors.
I feel that a true intellectual conservative seeks an answer to this problem that is morally and ethically sound - yes, the way John McCain is bravely seeking to do. The true intellectual doesn't simply seek to keep his "cultural house in order."
Comment by Daniel Killman | April 1, 2006
McCain is a traitor to Middle America. This man must not become President of this country.
Let him run in Mexico.
Kennedy has always been traitor. When will the people of Massachusetts vote this vehicular criminal/traitor out of office?
We want a wall and no amnesty. The bleeding must stop NOW!
Comment by Middle American | April 1, 2006
Kennedy claimed that,
"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same. . . . Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. . . . Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia. . . . In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think."
These claims beg the question, "Just what is the purpose of his bill if there will be essentially no change in the immigration status quo?"
Comment by G of Sedona | April 1, 2006
Tom Kelly, we don't want to get rid of all the Mexicans, just illegals ones. Let me see if I follow you here. You assert that pushing out the illegals would cause a massive depression? Hmmm, these people get our tax benefits, but they don't pay taxes. They raise unemployment of our citizens, who can't sneak around minimum wage like illegals and are thus forced out of a job. They aren't as effected by low wages as we are because many of them work here by themselves and send much of the money back into Mexico, where the cost of living is much lower than here. They get benefits from the government, which allows them to ship more money home and out of our economy. Basically, they cost us jobs, lower wage rates, take tax benefits for which they pay nothing, and ship money out of the country and out of our economy. This has nothing to do with race. Once Again, it's nice to see people like you going on incoherent rants and calling people ignorant and racist because you have nothing of substance to say. If these people were white Canadians sneaking in and pulling this crap, believe me conservatives would be just as pissed.
Comment by Shane Atwood | April 1, 2006
Tom Kelly,
Anyone is welcome in America to do hard work and prosper as long as they come here LEGALLY. Just because a third world country shares a boarder with us gives them the devine right to cross over our boarders at will? Using that kind of ignorant logic, if immigration is an inalienable right to anyone who wants it, shouldn't we be obligated to build land bridges to every third world nation on the planet so that they can enjoy those same opportunities? And how exactly does undercutting the minimum wage so that legal workers cannot be employed in the same job, receiving welfare benefits without paying taxes, and breaking the law without punishment help our economy? The answer is it doesn't. It isn't. And at no time in America has immigration been assumed to be a right of anyone who wants it, that's why the Immigration and Naturalization Service exists: To decide who is genuine, and who will be of benefit to the country. There has never been a time in America's history where this kind of illegal take over of entire states has been tolerated. In fact, when there were too many Asians being brought here by big businesses to build the railroads, all immigration from Asian countries was temporarily suspended and a limit was placed on it thereafter. We're facing the same problem now, except on a much more enormous scale (we're talking about 350 million people in the entire country, and over 12 million illegal aliens), and with extremely unintelligent liberals like yourself supporting it with your ignorant, naive, convoluted logic.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | April 1, 2006
All immigration should be reduced to replacement levels, about 225,000 per year. Two million is out-of-hand.
Arresting employers takes care of 75% of the problem. I think we could arrest six employers per month, per state. As long as the arrests are well publicized (I'd like "perp walks" on the nightly news), most businesses will fall into compliance.
Comment by The Plumber | April 4, 2006
No. 3
The reason that 80% of legal citizens who oppose illegal immigration are not marching in the streets is because we have to go to work.
Comment by Nathan Reed | April 4, 2006
If you add up all the health, education, incarceration and other costs of the lawbraking immigrants, subtract any token taxes they may have given and divide that amount by american taxpayers. I wonder how much that would be? What if you then gave a rebate to the taxpayer for every deported illegal outlaw no longer on the USA dole? Everyone could then choose to use their money to support business or freely send their money to mexican charities without it being extorted.
Comment by parsimonious mom | April 6, 2006
Tom Kelly,
Can I break into your house and stay there illegaly until you give me a room?
I'm Canadian but I speak the language and I don't have a criminal background, that should be enough for you right?
Just because I stubbornely impose myself for 2 years inside your home, don't I deserve a room in your home?
Tom as you said " Why should freedom to pursue opportunities, especially in the land of the free, be limited to those whose accident of birth put them here?"
Tom, Let's say your parents left you a house after they passed away;
Why should an accident of birth make that home yours and not mine?
Is it my fault if your parents did not have me as a child?
why should ownership of the house be limited to you because by chance your parents had you and not me?
Equal opportunity means your house is as much mine as yours.
Don't you agree Tom
you savant- philantropist? ( as opposed to us ignorant-racists )
At what time do you serve breakfast Tom?
Comment by Friend of USA | April 8, 2006