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.
Labels: dee, immigration, la raza
posted by Tanstaafl at 8/28/2007 12:25:00 AM
17 Comments:
Gosh Tan. I am so flattered you devoted an entire blog to me.
As I´ve said so often, I am a loyal American asking PROs and ANTIs to civilly discuss and find a resolution to the Immigration issues we face today in our country.
I am not your enemy Tan. If we met, you would like me. I am a grandmother. I want secure borders, employer sanctions. Where we disagree is what to do about the 12M here. You know this as well as I do, and with this, I invite all of your members to visit my blog and discuss these issues civilly as well.
Also, I am earnest and I am not an "invader."
I was born in Michigan. My father his and his were born in TX. My family and extended family have been loyal Americans for hundreds of years. My Dad, uncles, brothers and nephews have all served in War defending our country and I have 2 nephews in Iraq right now.
Dee, I've looked at your blog. I would have commented there but since there are already 68 comments on your latest post, I doubt that many readers will scroll all the way to the end for whatever I can add. So I'll give you my thoughts here, and perhaps you, along with others, will read them.
1. You go on and on about your ancestry, as though that somehow validates your position. It's a variation on the "my grandfather went through Ellis Island" ploy so beloved of New York immigration cheerleaders.
I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that you are legally an American. You say you are a loyal one, and maybe you are as you understand loyalty. But how come you describe yourself as a Mexican American? If you're going to insist on that, you can't complain if some people suspect you of divided loyalties.
2. You say in one of your earlier posts:
"Bring the 12M out of the shadows through a registration, ID process for all head of households. Temporary Guest Worker status with return to country of origin to begin legal process. Sponsorship by employers as applicable."
It's hard to know even where to begin. First, 12 million is the official figure; the real number of illegals — I know you don't like that term, but they are lawbreakers, one and all — is widely estimated at 20 to 30 million, and is growing all the time because of the invaders' extremely high birth rates and our insane birthright citizenship.
Next: what "shadows"? When several hundred thousand Mexicans demonstrated in LA a couple of years ago, and are frequently seen at other demonstrations, they obviously have no fear of being deported.
The other day I asked a worker speaking Spanish at a building site near my home if he was in the country illegally. "Yes, I'm illegal," he said belligerently. Pulling out his cell phone, he added, "I'll call the police if you want." He knew perfectly well nobody would bother him.
As for employer sponsorship, I don't want any. Of course plenty of employers will be happy to sponsor thousands of Mexicans if they can get cheap labor that way; they already are unofficially sponsoring them. If the law requires them to pay "guest workers" the same as anyone else, they won't bother importing Mexicans.
I don't give a damn whether illegals are enrolled in some form of registration and given ID cards. That will just create another huge bureaucratic muddle, and many illegals will find new ways to game the system. I want the problem stopped at its source, which is businesses that hire illegals so they can pay employees far less than the going wage. Fine them, jail them in the more egregious cases. Employers will get the message. And so will illegals. They will deport themselves, without any help from ICE.
Like all open borders advocates, you completely ignore the social costs: anchor babies whose birth is paid for by taxpayers, other forms of welfare, criminal gangs, narcotics dealing, uninsured and drunken drivers, hospitals closed because they cannot afford to treat illegals who use their emergency rooms for "free" as their family doctor, highway congestion, overpopulation … all issues you carefully avoid in your "civil" discussion.
Speaking of which, although I appreciate that you do not (as far as I've seen) resort to the accusations of most open borders advocates that their opponents are "racists," "xenophobes," and all the rest of the insults, I am not happy about being labeled an ANTI.
Gosh Rick, I like your pix. You look a little like my brother. (both handsome)
I wrote about the reason I chose the title of my blog:
Here is why:
Back in the 80´s I wrote a letter to the editor of my local newspaper complaining that I was labeled Mexican American and people would not allow me to say “American” without asking, “Yes, but what are you?”
An African American gentleman replied to my letter and said, “Stop complaining about it. Rejoice in your ethnicity. There is something “cozy” about being part of a minority group.”
I took his comments to heart. From that point on, I did not bluster about the label. I knew I was American.
I title my blog this way so visitors will be able to immediately recognize my cultural background and for blog purposes, this is important. I am not offended by the term anymore. I know I am an American.
Also, many of the assumptions your side makes about assimilation are false. I was a migrant cherry picker as a child. We were citizens of course, but we were cherry pickers.
I am assimilated. My children, all my nieces, nephews, and extended family are all assimilated. Tanton, one of the ANTI godfathers, said Hispanics were not educatable. His statements were false. Me and mine live in a nice neighborhood. No 3rd world country. Many of your side confuse poverty with the Hispanic culture. All 50M of us, all legal citizens, do not agree. We are just like everyone else here. Rich, poor, hard working, easy going, just like you.
Rick, come over and comment.I am going to start a new blog soon.
Rick is correct about Dee's blog being too long.
Here is a copy of my post regarding the NAFTA Super Highway and how it explains President Bush's open border policies.
This is a lot of unsettling stuff to take in at one time. What follows is an article by Phyllis Schlafly that clearly and briefly explains the NAFTA super highway that is under construction in Texas.
BEGIN ARTICLE:
It's not just American ports that are fast slipping into foreign ownership; it's highways, too. A Spanish company, Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A., has bought the right to operate a tollroad through Texas and collect tolls for the next 50 years.
Called the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC), on which construction is planned to begin next year, this highway would bisect Texas from its border with Mexico to Oklahoma. Hearings held by the Texas Department of Transportation this summer attracted hundreds of angry Texans.
Plans call for a ten-lane limited-access highway to parallel I-35. It would have three lanes each way for passenger cars, two express lanes each way for trucks, rail lines both ways for people and freight, plus a utility corridor for oil and natural gas pipelines, electric towers, cables for communication, and telephone lines.
Central to this plan is a massive taking of 584,000 acres of farm and ranch land at an estimated cost of $11 to $30 billion, property then lost from the tax rolls of counties and school districts. After the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, no one need worry about the power of eminent domain to take private property.
The Trans-Texas Corridor will be the first leg of what has been dubbed the NAFTA Super Highway to go through heartland America all the way to Canada. This would be a major lifeline of the plan to merge the United States into a North American Community.
Plans are already locked in for Kansas City Southern de Mexico Railroad to bring Chinese goods in sealed cargo containers from the southern Mexican port of Lazaro Cardinas direct to Kansas City, Missouri. Mexican trucks will be able to drive more sealed containers up the fast lanes of the NAFTA Super Highway, inspected only electronically if at all, and making their first customs stop in Kansas City.
In response to recent articles in conservative publications about the sovereignty, freedom and economic dangers that will result from President Bush creating the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) in Waco in March 2005, the SPP has issued an unconvincing rebuttal.
This SPP document starts by declaring that "our three great nations share a belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions." That's false; Mexico is a corrupt country where a few families control all the wealth while the rest of the people are kept in abject poverty with no hope of economic opportunity.
The document states that SPP's mission is to make "our businesses more competitive in the global marketplace." That's globalist doubletalk which means producing U.S. goods with cheap foreign labor, thereby destroying the U.S. middle class.
The document states that SPP wasn't "signed" by Bush at Waco. But when Bush went to Cancun in March 2006, he proclaimed the first anniversary of whatever he had agreed to in Waco in 2005, and he sent Michael Chertoff to Ottawa to take "an important first step" toward whatever Bush did or didn't sign in Waco.
The document denies that SPP's working groups are secret, but SPP won't release the names of who is serving on them. The document denies that SPP will "cost U.S. taxpayer money" because SPP is using "existing budget resources" (no doubt coming from the fairy godmother).
Thanks to the internet, we can often find out more about the doings of the Bush Administration from the foreign press than from the U.S. media. An article written in Spanish from a Mexican perspective one year ago fully described the plan for the "deep integration" of the three North American countries.
Economist and researcher Miguel Pickard explained that although the plan is sometimes called NAFTA Plus, there will be no single treaty text and nothing will be submitted to the legislatures of the three countries. The elites plan to implement their shared vision of "a merged future" through "the signing of 'regulations' not subject to citizens' review."
Pickard revealed a series of three meetings of a new entity called the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America (ITF). After secretly conniving in Toronto, New York and Monterrey, the ITF called for a unified North American Border Action Plan (i.e, open borders among the three countries), and the three countries then signed "close to 300 regulations."
The United States was represented at the ITF by Robert Pastor, who has been working for years to promote North American integration. Pickard revealed that Pastor is in "constant dialogue" with Jorge G. Castaneda, Vicente Fox's foreign relations adviser.
Pickard is convinced that George W. Bush is "vigorously pushing" the idea of a "North American community." Pickard concluded that the schedule calls for beginning with a customs union, then a common market, then a monetary and economic union, and finally the adoption of a single currency (already baptized as the "amero" by Robert Pastor).
END OF ARTICLE.
For those of you who want to read the article where it resides go to
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/aug06/06-08-23.html
For a long time the actions of President Bush regarding immigration made absolutely no sense to me. But now that I know that he wants there to be an AMERO, an Union of the Americas with no borders whatsoever in an attempt to emulate the European Union and their EURO, Bush's unconstitutional behavior, i.e., failing to faithfully execute border security and immigration law, makes complete sense.
I don't agree with it of course. I think he's a traitor and is doing it for self-interested reasons, he does own property in Texas and he was governor there for many years. So I'm sure there is a money making angle for himself and his many rich friends. What a patriot! Viva El Presidente!
BTW
I have trouble with blogspot truncating my links. The full link is as follows
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/
aug06/06-08-23.html
Here is the initial post I made to Dee's blog about the NAFTA super highway. As you can see from the Schlafly article, my synopsis was pretty accurate.
Here's the post.
If you do not know what the NAFTA Super Highway is, I encourage you to find out. Every American should know that a Spanish company is building a toll road (they will collect the tolls exclusively) that is football fields wide to expedite commercial trucking from Mexico. The highway is under construction in Texas and will extend from the Texas/Mexican border through Texas, through Oklahoma, to Kansas City. The "Kansas City Smart Port" which is being constructed is the final destination. This smart port will be the sovereign territory of Mexico (much like an embassy in that way) and it will be at that port that Mexico will conduct border inspection of the trucks that have come via the NAFTA super highway.
Some highlights of this project include:
1. The NAFTA Super Highway will have no on or off ramps. It is a straight shot to the KC Smart Port.
2. No American business will be allowed to set up any gas station, restaurant, or any other money making enterprise along the highway. Such businesses will be constructed, owned, and operated by the Spanish company who controls the highway.
3. All revenues from the tolls will go to the Spanish company. None to the US.
4. There will be no inspection at the Texas/Mexican border. The only inspection will be at the KC Smart Port and it will be conducted by the Mexican government as the Smart Port will be their sovereign territory.
5. The Texas governor (by the way the legislature has been fighting the governor, but the governor has vetoed all legislation resisting the NAFTA highway) authorized and instituted a separate court system in Texas, designed to speed and facilitate the numerous eminent domain takings of ranchers' property that are necessary so that the NAFTA super highway can be built.
The Supreme Court's recent Kelo decision (within the last year or two) allows the government to take private property via eminent domain if the taking is for the "public good." The constitution says that the extraordinary eminent domain power must be for "public use." Before 2 years ago, throughout the history of our country, the eminent domain power has been used to eminent domain private property for the purpose of building schools or inter state highway (Federal government highway, a US highway, not a foreign company's highway). But the Supremes decided in Kelo that a home owner had to give up their home to eminent domain so that a shopping mall could be built. The Supremes decided that the tax revenues and jobs created by this privately owned shopping mall constituted the "public good" and thereby expanded the constitutions explicit language of "public use." This has paved the way for the eminent domain takings that make the NAFTA Super Highway construction possible.
This is shocking stuff. It has taken me months to accept it. Many sleepless nights. One of the most troubling aspects of it is why doesn't the media cover this? Why is there this absolute silence? It appears to be some kind of effort to prevent the American public from knowing until it is too late. Much like the way the Immigration Reform Bill was discussed amongst a very few in power behind closed doors followed by a quick attempt to pass it before the public had a chance to debate or discuss it. At least in that case, once the bill was first voted on there was media coverage (which eventually snowballed).
Here are some links about the NAFTA Super Highway. Judge for yourself.
Oklahomans and Texans fighting the NAFTA Super Highway:
http://www.oklahomacorridorwatch.com/
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:xj4eqQsMg-AJ:www.jbs.org/node/4134+n...
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15682
Dee-this is the first time ever in any of your posts that you say your father served in the war. Which war did he serve in?
Through your words you demonstrate that you are my enemy dee. You and everyone who thinks like you.
You are even worse than someone who is clueless. You have been pointed over and over to facts that contradict your assertions. You ignore these facts, and continue to spout misinformation.
Your starting point for "compromise", that we must accept millions of invaders - people who were not born here and have no right to be here - is absurd. You provide no rationale for it, no facts to support it, because you have none.
If you're interested in compromise, prove it. Say that we have a right and can deport illegal aliens. Say who you'd deport and how. Say you realize there are more than 12M. Say you know the Ladeeenyo reconquista philosophy is real and mainstream. Say ANYTHING that demonstrates the loyalty to America you claim.
Where you live, who you married, and what your family members did doesn't demonstrate YOUR loyalty. But it certainly looks like all you've got.
Dee said--"If we met, you would like me." I have read this quote by her more than once.
Dee, I would not like you in person
any more than I like your anti-American, pro illegal invasion thoughts. If it were in my power, I would deport you to Mexico!
Anonymous T, How do you know that? I may be right next door, or down the street, or standing next to you in the store. I am just another citizen.
Tan, I care about this issue as I have shared. At a minimum, now you understand there are many Americans who do not agree with you. You have met a few on my blog. There are countless others.
I read your blog, full of hard opinion and passion. You too are entitled to your opinion.
I agree with you re: border security and employer sanctions. We differ in our Opinions on the 12M here. I believe in Comprehensive Immigration Reform. You do not.
I believe in my perspective, otherwise I would not have started my blog.
You keep saying 12M. You are in denial on that fact and many others.
I wouldn't deny that there are lots of nice Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. The main problem is that we are currently being overrun by Mexicans who aren't nice at all. I've lived in the same small SF Bay Area town for 20 years, and in the past two or three years the Mexicans have been taking over. Our lovely parks and beach, which used to be safe, now have roving bands of shirtless Mexican youth with gang tattooes (sp), who don't respect other peoples' space. They walk right up to everyone, testing them. They stare at women openly...even underage girls. This is a quality of life issue, as well as a legal one. I wish those Mexican hoodlums would leave. They have their own country to trash, if that's what they want.
Tanstaafl, I agree with your sentiments. I think your analogy with 'moderate Muslims' is an apt one.
We Americans have to get over this syndrome in which we lean over backwards finding 'nice' or moderate or likeable members of the groups who are at the very minimum our competitors for this country, and at worst, our sworn enemies.
Sure, we all know 'nice' individuals among those groups but we have become so pathologically obsessed with being 'fair' and 'tolerant' that we are now being overrun and taken brazen advantage of. So the fact that there are moderates or 'nice' people among our competitors or our enemies is absolutely irrelevant. The very fact that we keep finding moderates and nice people on the other side is doing us in, because it disarms us. I have said this many times, to the point where people are tired of my saying it, but we are allowing ourselves to be disarmed by a little politeness or a smile or a veneer of 'friendliness'. Just as I say about moderate Moslems, one moderate pays the fare for a dozen extremists. One moderate opens the doors for many terrorists, because the moderates soothe our suspicions and cause us to feel ashamed of our rightful suspicions. We are just being seduced by the moderates. Now they may not consciously be fifth columnists, but the effect is exactly the same as if they were.
I have no desire to engage in any debate with 'moderates' on the other side; it's pointless, and life is too short, in my opinion. I just say we have to stop being so darn nice and stop making it easy for those who want to take this country, whether they want to take it by violent means or demographic means -- it's all the same in the end.
Bottom line -
You break the laws of this country you MUST face consequences. Without consequences the law is meaningless.
You enter the country illegally - you should be deported.
Youre illegal and commit a crime - you pay restitution and get deported.
Enough of the niceties for people who have no respect for our laws. I dont care if you have an anchor - the anchor has the right to stay - the parent should be deported.
Dont suggest its "not realistic". Earlier in August Bush finally got off his rear and pushed enforcement in the form of employer exposure to employees on the "no-match" list for social security. In response MALDEF www.maldef.org called on the president "to abandon ineffective enforcement measures that only do more harm than good" citing "ICE and Social security records are notoriously inaccurate and out of date".
Well, as a business owner I thin it would be goddam helpful if the govt bureaucrats did some work and told me when one of my employees are no-matches. In fact wouldnt it be beneficial to know that your SS# and info is fucked up NOW instead of when you try to collect it when your 62 (or 65 or 69 or 87 - whatever the idiots in DC decide to raise it to)?
I am tired of the smokescreen.
Oh - I enjoyed this little ditty as well:
"Hardest hit will be small Latino businesses because of the greater number of Latinos they employ."
Hmmmmm... why would Latinos have a greater number of screwed up SS info then the rest of the population? I guess MALDEF doesnt spend much time in the non-latino sections de Nueva York - ever see how russians and polacks spell their first and last names? Without a comma I have no idea which is which.
Rick nails it - enforce the laws on the employers.
As for Dee - I support LEGAL IMMIGRATION. I would like to see changes to include significant background checks and complete forensic sampling including DNA and fingerprints. I really dont give a flying one who we let in as long as we KNOW who it is.
NAFTA super highway - old news finally makes the Age. We bullied about this in the think tank days when you werent fully appreciative of our Bush-bashing.
Anon - just another sign of 3rd world importation.
vanishing - there's nothing wrong with moderates as long as they recognize the threat and want to protect their families, homes and future. The biggest problem we face with any 3rd world immigration is that the new arrivals do not realize the difference in quality of life. I drive extensively thru 3rd world neighborhoods throughout NYC and its depressing to see the poverty and filth. As much as we can blame the system, there are so many who are perfectly happy living this way sharing $500/month roach motels with big screen TVs, decked out stereos and SUVs.
One could swallow it if this were simply an "Ellis Island" generation working thru our society - but, when it is a continuous flood there is no upward movement and the ghetto just gets bigger.
Not looking forward to a recession in this country - there will be alot of suffering.
Post a Comment
<< Home