Arguing with an Invasion Supporter

It started when I stumbled over to see what dee was saying. She and I have commented on each other's blogs a bit lately. She describes her blog thusly:

Discuss Immigration Issues with a Mexican American. Truth, Honesty and the American Way!

and describes herself like so:

Hello. My name is Dee. I live in Texas. I am an American. My ethnicity is Hispanic. Many would call me Mexican or Mexican American. Some call me a female, PRO-Immigration Reform - Ann Coulter. My parents, their parents and theirs were all born in the USA. My husband and I have been happily married for over 20 years. My husband is a big, Irish-American. We have two grown sons. We are happy and my family is doing well. I have been employed as a mid level manager at a very large, well known corporation for over 20 years. In May, 2006, after the Immigration Marches, I started seeing the cable news channels talking very negatively about illegal immigration. I found many internet sites were talking negatively about legal and illegal immigration issues as well. Since I do research on the job, I started conducting Immigration research on the web. I joined several Immigration websites and I researched others. I´ve learned so much about Immigration issues over the last year. What you don´t see on the internet is the Mexican American perspective. I am here to share my views with you.

Dee writes in a polite and pleasant manner. To her credit she does not misinterpret my brusque style as rude.

I couldn't resist commenting at length on an item titled Why the ANTIs are winning the Argument right now. (FYI dee calls herself and others who support the invasion "PRO", and anyone who opposes the invasion "ANTI", though she does not use the word invasion.)

The problem I have with dee is that I believe she, to put it very bluntly, is a fifth columnist. This is because she views virtually everything through the lens of her Mexican identity, unabashedly supports the invasion, and yet puts on airs that she's a centrist seeking compromise. She loves to say she favors enforcement - of the Senate's toothless "comprehensive reform" variety of course.

Her argument ranges from stories about her father, to immigration law from 1924, to flatly asserting that we simply cannot deport all the illegals. Right off the bat she tried to dismiss me by calling me an "extremist" full of "hate" toward "all Latinos". Hopefully it's clear why the ANTIs win these arguments. The PROs bring nothing of substance.

It's a long thread, but quite revealing. She's very slippery. I still can't quite tell if she's earnest with an ethnocentric bias, craving attention, or just blowing smoke deliberately in order to waste people's time. Perhaps a bit of all. More than a few commenters certainly are wasting their time getting into the nitty gritty of "compromise" with her, and in my view that's not a good thing. So it was worth my time to try and disillusion her readers (present and future) and deflate her little personal blogspot-Senate.

I want more Americans to see more quickly just how fruitless it is to compromise with the invaders and their apologists, to see how flimsy their promises are, and how anti-American their ultimate aims are. Immigration "moderates" (like Muslim "moderates") try to exploit our good will and fair nature. They're not interested in compromise. They're interested in weakening our defense so their buddies can fuck us. My country has taken enough of that.

As bad as the invasion is, imagine how much closer to a balkanized third world shithole we'd be if the Senate's duplicitous "compromise" had passed. We'd have no hope of deporting the violent scum overrunning our country. Unfortunately El Presidente and half the Senate continue to argue just like dee, and pine for exactly the kind of "compromise" she does. Too many loyal Americans are too ill-informed or too frightened about being called names to stand up in defense of their country.

Wake up America. Listen to the brown supremacists. We don't need to negotiate our future with hostile aliens and their fifth columnists. We need to tell the bigots to shut up, and start sending them home.

Hate Speech Pinheads Really Hate Speech

Here's a wonderful example of a petty little ethnocentric pro-invasion mind at work. Note that it's fueled by hypocrisy and denial. Since such minds have no rational arguments their impulses tend toward muffling those who oppose them.

'Anchor babies' is hate speech
RAOUL LOWERY CONTRERAS

Today's North County Times readers can't find an article that uses the infamous N-word, the Q-word (queer) or words like "homo" for homosexual.

What they find is the use of the words "anchor babies" in letters or Opinion pieces.

"Anchor babies" are words used by extremists to define babies born of illegal alien parents in the United States.

Most of these children are born to Mexican parents illegally in the United States. Shamefully, the anti-illegal alien cohort also applies the term to any Mexican-American regardless of the legality of one or both parents, grandparents or great-grandparents.

Oh my. "Anchor babies" is hate speech? How about your word "extremists" Raoul, you hypocrite? How about the racist, fascist, bigot, xenophobe, and nativist slurs so effortlessly tossed around by your colleagues in the media Raoul? How about the guero, pilgrim, gabacho, and gringo labels your La Raza carnales prefer Raoul? Shame on you and your myopic ethnocentrism. Of course we hate invaders. And you hate us for hating "your people". Pot, meet kettle.

Anchor baby is a perfectly descriptive phrase. It describes exactly what these babies represent. It reflects how their own parents feel about them. Which is of course why Raoul would like to see the phrase banned. That truth is embarassing, thus he wants it obscured. Do us all a favor Raoul - take your censorship, your politically correct N-word games, and shove them up your A-word. Nice try at hooking your victimology wagon to niggers and homos though. I'm sure they'll appreciate your baggage.

Oh, did I violate your politically correct censorship laws? It's ok. Take a deep breath and pull the panties out of your crack. They're called "words". We use them to "communicate". And this endeavor is only infantilized and impeded if we play pig-latin-like games with every word that somebody like you might be offended by. I will not play those games. People like you obviously want to nullify the First Amendment by outlawing anything you don't want to hear as "hate speech". The constitution describes the legitimate process, but you'll find it much easier to have your pro-invasion dictators in black robes divine an emanation of a penumbra that enables you to call for state-backed violence against me simply for offending you.

Until then I'll say anchor baby all I want, thanks. But just for giggles let's brainstorm a few alternatives, shall we?

jackpot baby - Hmmm. Good second choice. Positive rather than negative connotations. And who can deny the literal windfall the proud alien parents reap? It starts with free health care (including delivery) and extends to free education, WIC, and the occasional free trip to your real homeland! Such a deal!

undocumented American baby - Harry Reid's personal favorite. They're just Americans who lost their documents. And we all know how hard-working they are. Harry might even someday call them hard-working undocumented American worker babies with great family values. Note the near perfect reality-inversion. The parents are not Americans, never had any documents, and exhibit a way below average ability to stay employed, in school, and out of jail - so let's claim exactly the opposite! Brilliant! No other country in the world awards citizenship to a baby just because of where they get dropped. Ssssh! Don't ever mention that.

illegitimate baby - While technically correct illegitimate already has another meaning. And it sure is useful to be able to distinguish an illegitimate anchor baby (like Elivra's bastard - oops, have the PC-police banned that perfectly descriptive word?) from a legitimate anchor baby (like Bill "call me Lopez" Richardson).

natural-born United States citizen baby - Raoul's preference. Of course. Because then we wouldn't be able to distinguish babies born to parents who are here legally from those born to parents here illegally. At least not without bogging down every conversation about immigration. Mission accomplished, right Raoul? No person is illegal, right Raoul? Words have no meaning, right Raoul?

invader baby - My preference. The 14th Amendment (whose plain language pro-invaders like Raoul love to misread) was not intended and has never been interpreted to grant citizenship to the babies of foreign diplomats or invaders. If you "migrate" here without "documentation" then you are by definition an invader. Raoul denies this reality. Talk about an inconvenient truth. Actually, this is precisely what Raoul and his friends want us not to talk about.

So answering Raoul hasn't been a complete waste of time. By trying to shut down debate he actually inspired one, and in answering his absurd logic I've arrived at a deeper truth. From this point on I for one shall use the term invader baby - which is even more descriptive and correct than anchor baby, and thus is sure to piss off Raoul and his pro-invasion friends even more.

Gracias Raoul! You wouldn't by any chance be an invader baby would you? Write some more of your thoughts about immigration, please.

Oxymorons In Charge

AG: Cops must ask suspects for immigration status

Attorney General Anne Milgram today ordered all local police officers in New Jersey to inquire about the immigration status of suspects charged with serious crimes, and to notify federal immigration authorities if there is reason to believe the suspect is in the country illegally.

The requirements, which go into effect immediately, apply to suspects arrested for specific indictable offenses and for driving while intoxicated, Milgram said. If the suspect is unable to prove he or she is legally in the United States, the police officer is required to notify Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, she said. The policy also specifies that prosecutors and courts be notified.

Why shouldn't such commonsense rules apply to all arrests in all states? Why is it left up to individual AGs to call for this, and why apply it only in some cases?

We hear from our leaders that they don't have the resources to seek out illegal aliens. They say absurd things like, "We don't have 12 million handcuffs." But they already have some of the worst aliens in handcuffs. All they have to do is make the same sort of check Bush's recent "crackdown" requires of employers.

Why does the Bush administration require employers to check workers but doesn't require law enforcers to check criminals?

NJ's action will likely be attacked and thwarted by the usual legal 5th columnists. Gonzales may even step in - against NJ. And even if the rules stand, and even if they are copied by other states, why should anyone expect ICE to deport the illegal aliens referred to them? Given their performance so far I think we can safely expect a whole lotta nothing.

How did we get here? Well it has more than a little to do with the traitorous sentiments of government officials with regard to so-called sanctuary cities:

In Newark and other cities with large immigrant populations, officials note that detectives investigating robberies, rapes and murders already are struggling to develop informants among a population fearful of the police. Adopting the role of immigration cops would make that job even tougher and allow criminals to go free and commit even more crime, they have said.

"I do not want to create a chill in my community where people are afraid to come forward to police and report crimes," Newark Mayor Cory Booker said last week. "Undocumented immigrants and immigrants within our city are an important part of our fabric. And my police department, it is not their role or responsibility."

About one in five of New Jersey's 8.7 million residents was born in other countries, according to U.S. Census figures. The state is also home to an estimated 450,000 illegal immigrants.

Note the illogic. Adding an immigration status check to the booking process won't turn detectives into "immigration cops", and deporting illegal alien criminals would surely reduce crime not "allow criminals to go free and commit even more crime". Why in the world aren't the mayor and his unnamed "officials" more concerned about the safety of the legal residents than they are about frightening illegal aliens?

Beyond the faulty reasoning behind sanctuary policies, why does our Executive Branch tolerate their open defiance of federal law? If an example was made out of one sanctuary city (I nominate Newark) many of the rest would quickly fall into line.

"Immigration enforcement" has become an oxymoron. Our leaders prove it by their unwillingness to stop even the most flagrantly illegal activity. They make excuses for violent criminals. And when they act they deliberately get their priorities backward. It would be a farce if it weren't for the tragic consequences.

If we don't take urgent steps to repulse this invasion it will doom us to the dustbin of history. What hope can we have when our leaders, many of whom have sworn to protect our people and uphold our constitution, betray us and side with the invaders?

Things for Obedient Workers to Ponder

Who owns you?

What crash?

Will Flip This House be cancelled?

Bread and Circuses

I left a comment on this item at Lonewacko where he notes the New York Times has finally acknowleged attrition as an immigration strategy - if only to deride it as a "flood of misery" and "pest control".

LW, your point is well taken. But they are only throwing out the attrition bone as a distraction. A false compromise. Much like the "crackdown" headlines today used to cover govt actions that are 50% "streamlining". And of course the 50% enforcement part is calculated to stir up support for "reform". A few raids to energize the Ladeeenyos, some fines to energize businesses. The "crackdown" is a farce, as is the NYT nod to attrition.

Faced with the perennial nonsensical arguments in favor of immigration and their imperviousness to any logic, reason, or empirical evidence to the contrary, I for one am now openly and loudly in favor of mass deportations.

Boxcars, detention centers, random stops, neighborhood sweeps, shattered dreams, crying babies. Cry me a river. I'm for stopping immigration cold. ALL immigration. I'm for deporting foreign-born criminals and Muslims - regardless of immigration or naturalization status.

Furthermore I accept the labels "racist", "xenophobe", "nativist", "bigot", "fascist", etc. I used to think these words meant something bad. Nowadays I see that they are only used to intimidate good people from doing what is right and just.

The immigration invasion is inflicting far worse consequences on Americans than any "mass deportation" would inflict on aliens. We have every right to expect our laws to be enforced, including mass deportation if that's what it takes.

We can't settle for "pest control" because then we'll only get some lame mix of amnesty and attrition. Fearless active prosecution is the only way to undo the great harm that's already been done. The big problem: can a government so compromised, so corrupt, so inept, so illegitimate be expected or trusted to actually do this?

Bush, Chertoff, Gonzales, Gutierrez, et al can't be trusted to do it. The NYT, WSJ, LAT, et al can't be trusted to report it. Thwarted in their recent naked grab, AKA Comprehensive Immigration Reform, these quislings have just shifted back to incremental steps toward opening while trying to dupe us that it's the opposite.

I have no intention of being melodramatic, but it seems clear that the only way the immigration invasion is going to be stopped is by changing our leadership and reversing their policies. In other words: revolution.

By the way, the "crackdown" story starts with a paragraph that gives away the scam:

The Bush administration announced plans Friday to enlist state and local law enforcement in cracking down on illegal immigrants, which previously was largely a federal function.

All it takes to see through this phoney baloney is knowledge of a few things that, unfortunately, most citizens don't know:

A) The ACLU has had great success over the last few years intimidating state and local law enforcement from doing anything about "illegal immigrants" with the argument that any attempt to do so usurps the federal government's sole responsibility to enforce immigration laws. The Feds are well aware that dictators in black robes have sided with the ACLU, so they know any attempt to enlist state and local governments in immigration will get defanged in court, just as the "enforcement" portion of any Comprehensive Immigration Reform would. Add the federal court system to the revolution's todo list.

B) "Illegal immigrant" is a sympathetic euphemism for "illegal alien", which is the proper and legally correct term. This may be the writer's phrasing rather than the Bush administration, but with Harry Reid calling them undocumented Americans it's clear that even lawmakers prefer weasel words when talking about immigration.

C) It is a mischaracterization to say "cracking down on illegal immigrants, which previously was largely a federal function" because there has been no crackdown on illegal immigrants since Operation Wetback in the 1950s, and they aren't even pretending to start anything worthy of being called a "crackdown" now. Some fines, some extra agents. That's not a crackdown, it's a pathetic charade. Immigration is a fundamental governmental responsibility which has in the last few decades, especially these past six years of the current administration, been a notorious example of disfunction.

The country is literally being invaded and all these twits can do is shuffle papers and whimper about how they didn't get their Comprehensive Reform?

Leaving Aztlan

I just returned from a brief trip to scout out a new home in a different state. A friend asked how it went. I said, "It was great. It's still America there." He laughed. It isn't funny.

My family and I will be uprooting our lives and leaving Aztlan soon. We don't know where exactly we'll end up, but for sure it won't be anywhere in CA, AZ, NM, TX, NV, or CO. We don't want to live under Ladeeenyo rule. Does that make me a racist?

I don't give a fuck.

What I know is we're tired of the endless Ladeeenyo demands for special treatment for "their people". They talk and act like a harmless oppressed minority even though they are more and more clearly growing into a spiteful vindictive majority. Like a horde of locusts they've descended on my once sleepy American town and are busily transforming it into a crowded, dangerous, Tijuana-like shithole of a slum. The value of my property is evaporating even while the values in more distant "nice" neighborhoods continue to climb. SoCal is balkanizing into ever more sharply divided ethnic enclaves, and my house is on the wrong side of the divide.

Our schools, once among the best in the state, now rate amongst the worst. Their funds and a ridiculous amount of teacher time are consumed by more and more kids who speak no English. Why don't they put all the ESL kids in their own class? Because then we wouldn't get to celebrate diversity together. One painfully bilingual word at a time.

The local government's every attempt to pass ordinances that might reduce the massive illegal population have been met by loud-mouthed bigots screaming for "rights" for "their people". As in Hazleton, MALDEF and the ACLU lawyers happily work pro bono to keep the ordinances from going into effect. Their absurd argument: only the federal government can enforce immigration law. Wonderful. When an illegal alien hurts someone they love I dearly hope that argument haunts them.

So my once lovely town is going down the toilet. As is the rest of southern CA, and the rest of Aztlan. El Presidente Bush will do nothing to stop the invasion. He's the one who threw it into high gear.

We don't need a fence. We don't need 20 million handcuffs. What we need is a president who feels enough loyalty to America to actually defend it. We can fantasize about something like Eisenhower's Operation Wetback. Perhaps something better. With a loyal American president we could surely work out the details and solve our problems. Without a loyal American president none of the details matter.

Since the invasion will surely continue I can see only one course of action. Dunkirk it out of here. To find other people like myself and my family. To find some place that is still America, where American traditions and culture are still valued and celebrated. Where American history and heroes haven't been replaced with Mexican history and heroes, or some equally thin gruel of multicultural utopian double-talk. Where there are no gangs and the police and government are not controlled by ethnocentric bigots who brazenly do everything they can to benefit their own kind at the expense of everyone else.

One of America's greatest strengths has always been taking in immigrants from cultures around the world, and assimilating them into our country as Americans. By being citizens of the U.S. we are Americans first, and only, in our national loyalties.

This is totally opposed by MEChA for the hordes of illegal immigrants pouring across our borders, to whom they say:

"Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we...should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot...Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas ... It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny." (Statement on University of Oregon MEChA Website, Jan. 3, 2006)

MEChA isn't at all shy about their goals, or their views of other races. Their founding principles are contained in these words in "El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan" (The Spiritual Plan for Aztlan):

"In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. ... Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. ... We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada."

That closing two-sentence motto is chilling to everyone who values equal rights for all. It says: "For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing."

Emphasis mine.

I've had recent conversations with a few other local Anglo/Guero/Pilgrims and mentioned that I'm leaving.

"Why?", they ask.

"Because we don't want to live in Aztlan", I say.

"Aztlan? What's that?" When I explain they screw up their face. "What? That's not true. You believe in conspiracy theories? What are you, an ignorant racist?"

It's easy to see how they don't know about Aztlan, or MEChA, or how CA Lt Governor Cruz Bustamonte and LA Mayor Tony Villaraigosa and untold numbers of other powerful Ladeeenyos belong to it and support its reconquista agenda. Because our fair and balanced ever vigilant watchdog media finds such facts unworthy of note.

Why is that? I know. Because Aztlan is a conspiracy theory. And I'm a racist for believing it. Unfortunately for me that doesn't mean the reconquista isn't really happening.

So my family and I, like so many other despicable closet racists before us and so many more sure to come, are looking to move to a "nice place" with "good schools" and "friendly people". If such a place still exists.

If we were Ladeeenyos the media would spew endless epic verse about our plight, how our family is "migrating" and being "torn apart" by "oppressive racists" as we "seek a better life". Instead, the invasion has cost us dearly and it will cost us even more now as we try to get back to the quality of life we once had. And for noticing this injustice we are labeled filthy racists.

The sudden realization that we are only one of many families faced with this dim reality brings new understanding to headlines that I previously perceived as nothing more than disjoint babble. What I see is that a large fraction of our societal woes result directly from massive immigration. And a large fraction of our supposedly booming economy (notably real estate and construction) arises from the senseless displacement caused by people fleeing those societal woes.

Heckuva job El Presidente! Fearless reportage El Media!

Please read this if you're still convinced that immigration is wonderful and necessary. The problem is not that nobody sees what is happening. The problem is that not enough people see. Or too many are afraid of being called racist. That's changing, but it's too little too late to save SoCal.