Replies

Although the Journal is woefully wrong in their conclusions about what policy the GOP should advocate, it is right that there is a fundamental split in the party. Will it becsome what Democrats have always damned it for being, a tool for corporate interests to the detriment of the public interest? Or will it stand for American sovereignty? Alan Keyes warned that the Republican Party stands in danger of becoming the party of greed, much as the Democrats have become the party of lust. It saddens me to see the Journal pushing us in the wrong direction. Although the Journal is woefully wrong in their conclusions about what policy the GOP should advocate, it is right that there is a fundamental split in the party. Will it become what Democrats have always damned it for being, a tool for corporate interests to the detriment of the public interest? Or will it stand for American sovereignty? Alan Keyes warned that the Republican Party stands in danger of becoming the party of greed, much as the Democrats have become the party of lust. It saddens me to see the Journal pushing us in the wrong direction.

This article frosts me. It suggests that folks who want to curb immigration have no good reasons for their opinion other than racism.

What the WSJ ignores is that immigration is occuring in an America given over to multiculturalism. We can no longer assimilate immigrants into American culture at the rate we once did. Rather, they keep their own culture and language and, with sufficient numbers, expect to assimilate us.

The problem with this is that immigrants come from dysfunctional political cultures and nations. They flee here for a reason. Why should we import their dysfunctional culture? Why should my grandchildren have to live in a country become like Mexico, where bribery is the grease that runs the government--to the extent that the government runs at all--and everyone accepts that as the natural order?

We have a reasonably functional political culture here and it is up to us to make good decisions to keep and enhance it. Those who suggest such decisions are labeled racist. Well, I think the Ukraine is completely dysfunctional too. And the folks there are completely white bread. It ain't race. It's culture and political culture. We are better in that regard than both the Ukraine and Mexico and we should not be ashamed to say so. We should not be ashamed to reject the wholesale importation of such cultures into our culture.

My attitude about immigration would change a LOT if we were to reverse the multicultural trends of the past 40 years.

But America cannot continue to exist with both unlimited immigration and multiculturalism--we will become just another dysfunctional third-world nation. That, of course, is the goal of the left because they think they would be in charge in such a nation.

Excellent find.

There is a real problem with racists trying to use discredited studies, such as those by Donald Huddle to cloak their racism under the guise of opposing "ILLEGAL" immigrants. They claim they have no problem with legal immigrants, but only with ILLEGAL immigrants.

When you suggest that their objections can easily be cured simply by making them legal through amnesty, they drop back to the position that since they entered the country illegally they can never be made legal.

Sometimes it's difficult to tell which ones are simply racists and which ones really believe that ILLEGAL immigrants are responsible for them being unable to keep a job. Anyone who can't keep a job in today's tight labor market has serious personal issues. It eventually comes down to them blaming Bush for their personal problems.

The Journal is correct that there is a split in the Republican Party, as its constituency consists both of business/corporate interests and individual conservative voters. On most issues business and conservatives are like minded, but on immigration their views diverge. The WSJ obviously represents business/corporate interests (while pretending to be consistent ideologically in their conservatism.)

The business interests, whose mouthpiece the WSJ is, want one thing: cheap labor. Swamp the U.S. with third world workers, labor costs go down, and profits go up commensurately. Its that simple. Paradise, to the WSJ, would be a U.S. in which labor earns, like China, 75 cents an hour. The cost of Government coddling these workers is huge, but, no problem, that check will be left in front the taxpayer (that sucker) to pay. The Journal hints at times that profitable cheap labor is what is behind their rah-rah position on immigration, but since that is such a crass rationale, they intermittently trot out, none too convincingly, other rationales.

But since no one actually believes that mass third world immigration is a benefit overall to the U.S., the Journal makes only halfhearted attempts to convince anyone of that. Instead, tts immigration editorials are usually smash mouth, with more than a whiff of the old time Pravda. Like Pravda, it adopts the "Everyone knows that [immigration is good]..." tact, and proceeds to bash, name call ("Xenophobic"), impute ignoble motives, and basically copy the liberal stance of dismissing your political opponent as nothing more than a bigot.

I am not an "environmentalist" yet I reject high levels of unassimilated immigrants. We can barely hold onto a natinoal identity as it is (which is important when push comes to shove). We do not need mass immigration especially immigrants who have El presidente Fox come into America to tell them how it is going to be here in America. The issue of cheap labor has been brought up and it is simple supply and demand of course the more workers there are the lower the the pay rates. I am an American first type not an environmentalist.

"During an immigration subcommittee hearing in March, Mr. Cannon had the gumption to question the executive director of CIS, Mark Krikorian, as well as to challenge Roy Beck, who heads NumbersUSA and serves as 'spokesman' for CFAW."

Mr. Cannon? HIM? Oh yeah, good old Cannonball Addlehead, the guy who is long-since bought and paid for by Wall Street, MECHA, La Raza, and the Vicente Fox administration (probably with a few tips thrown in by the neocons...).

"After first denying it, Mr. Krikorian was forced to admit that CIS is a spin-off of FAIR."

A spin-off of FAIR? Ohhhhh -- you mean the same way some supporters of forced race-replacement like The Southern Carpetbagger Poverty-Pimp Lawless Way-Left-of-Center get-rich-quick scheme of Morris Dees are spin-offs of "The Communist Manifesto" and "Das Kapital," and other advocates of forced race-replacement, like The Off-the-Wall Street-Walker Urinal and the entire Bush administration are spin-offs of the worst sort of mafioso-type Bush-family Tex-Mex mutually-bribing, scratch-my-back-I'll scratch-yours Crony-Capitalism? Ohhhhh, now I get it -- in that case, yeah, I guess you could say CIS is a spin-off of FAIR...but what's the point?

"In fact, CIS, FAIR, NumbersUSA, Project-USA -- and more than a half-dozen similar groups that Republicans have become disturbingly comfy with -- [...]"

Disturbingly comfy with? COME AGAIN??? We should be so lucky... The GOP has things exactly on track for bringing about a non-white majority in this country in thirty more years, with the last remnants of the white race here to be finally extinguished not too much longer after that -- ten years, maybe? fifteen? fifteen, tops. So, who are the GOP getting disturbingly comfy with? Bush is so comfy with the immigration-reformers he's going to lose his shirt in November as those immigration reformers all vote for Nader, Peroutka, or someone else out of desperation, someone with a triple-digit IQ who actually does things like read newspapers... Yeah, Bush is really comfy with the immigration reformers... moron is gonna take a nosedive in Novermber and drag the whole Republican majority in Congress down with him. But hey, maybe this Alfred E. Newman clone will still have a future after November -- with MAD Magazine (also known as The Wall Street Journal...)