L’Intifada en Los Estados Unidos

National Review ^ | 17 November 2005 | Mark Krikorian

[RKV]

“Their parents’ generation was invited to France as laborers who were expected to return home but didn’t.” — “France Beefs Up Response to Riots,” Washington Post, November 8, 2005

“This program expects temporary workers to return permanently to their home countries after their period of work in the United States has expired.” — President George W. Bush outlining his worker-importation plan, January 7, 2004

As Muslim insurgents burn France’s suburban Occupied Territories, Americans can be forgiven for thinking “Thank God we have Mexicans and not Arabs.” Mexicans are Christian and politically passive, and large numbers of them and their children have assimilated thoroughly into the American people. Niall Ferguson made just this point in the Los Angeles Times.

But American supporters of mass immigration might want to postpone the self-congratulation. While it’s true that in this area, as in so many others, America’s problems are less acute than other nations’, the proposals before Congress to massively increase the importation of foreign workers could create two, three, many Clichys-sous-Bois in our future.

There are two reasons for this, one about Mexicans and one not. Regarding Mexicans: If you think we have a lot now, just wait until the president’s plan gets passed. The Mexican-immigrant population has been soaring, and all of the “temporary” worker proposals before Congress would supercharge that growth, both through their legal entry mechanisms as well as through the additional illegal immigration they will inevitably stimulate. The total number of Mexicans in the U.S. has grown from less than 800,000 in 1970, to 2.2 million in 1980, 4.3 million in 1990, 7.9 million in 2000, and 10.8 million this year (that’s 37-percent growth just in the past five years). Despite ludicrous claims by administration operatives that Mexican immigration will disappear on its own, Mexico’s own census agency forecasts between 3.5 and 5 million new immigrants to the U.S. per decade over the next generation, under current U.S. policy. Passage of the president’s plan or the McCain/Kennedy proposal — or even the less-egregious Kyl-Cornyn bill — would result in even more rapid increases in Mexican immigration, perhaps doubling yet again within a decade.

This is important because numbers matter; a Mexican immigrant population of 20 or 25 million is qualitatively different from today’s already-huge 11 million. It would create more of a constituency for the Aztlan irredentism that is already a normal part of political debate on the Left in California; more immediately, it would facilitate the Mexican government’s anti-assimilation initiatives (described in detail here by Heather Mac Donald) designed to create a regime of shared Mexican-U.S. sovereignty over much of our population, with Mexico City serving, in effect, as a second federal government that local and state officials would be answerable to. And when we rouse ourselves to reassert our exclusive sovereignty, as the French state tried to do in the no-go zones of its immigrant suburbs, the pushback might well be as intense.

But, of course, the word “Mexico” never appears in any of the worker-importation plans before Congress. The old Bracero Program (that ran for 20 years until the 1960s and sparked the illegal-immigration wave in the first place) was limited to Mexicans — Mexican men, in fact — but today’s anti-discrimination ethos makes such restrictions impossible. So what happens when American employers eventually realize there are workers abroad willing to accept wages even lower than Mexicans will accept? After all, Mexico is an upper-middle-income country by global standards, with a per-capita GDP in purchasing-power-parity terms of $9,600 — if you want huge amounts of really cheap labor, go to Indonesia (242 million people, 88 percent Muslim, per capita GDP $3,500) or Pakistan (162 million, 97 percent Muslim, GDP $2,200) or Bangladesh (144 million, 83 percent Muslim, GDP $2,000) or Egypt (77 million, 94 percent Muslim, GDP $4,200). We have been fortunate in that our Muslim population is comparatively small (1 percent of our population, compared with 10 percent in France), well-educated, prosperous, ethnically diverse, and geographically dispersed — all factors making radicalism and alienation less likely. But a new foreign-worker scheme could undo these benefits, by importing large numbers of poor, uneducated, ghettoized Muslim peasants, who will be expected to go back, but won’t.

Instead of risking our security with huge, unmanageable foreign-worker programs, the Senate and president would be wise to adopt the House Republicans’ approach of promoting attrition of the illegal population through consistent, across-the-board law enforcement, something we’ve never tried before. This would facilitate the assimilation of legal immigrants already here, enable the immigration bureaucracy to catch its breath, encourage low-wage industries to modernize, and shrink the sea within which foreign radicals — of all kinds — are able to swim.

Neither George Bush nor John McCain — nor even Ted Kennedy — want immigrant uprisings in America’s cities. But their immigration proposals would move us in that direction. We need to choose a different path.

— NRO contributor Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

[RKV]

Mexifornia aborning.

[JLS]

What a dumb article, among the difference between the US and France:

1. France enforces immigration law and these people came as legal residence and France let them stay permanently. That is the opposite of the US situation where we need to beef up our border security including probably having a guest worker program.

2. The immigrants in the case of the US share the same broad religion as the US again the opposite of the French situation.

3. France has not history of integrating immigrants, the US has a long history of integrating immigrants.

[don'tbedenied]

This was a disturbingly dumb article for all the reasons you mention. The racist who wrote this could, in 1890, just as easily named the Irish or Italian immigrants.
What's up at National Review?

[JLS]

Well I would not call this person racist. There is a long history of a segment of the US population that has been anti-immigrant. It has been the Unions in the Dim party, some people in the GOP and of course the Buchannites who I consider Dims.

[RKV]

Not a dumb article at all. The US is absorbing immigrants faster than it can assimilate them. This is "multiculturalism" in practice, and not a good thing. "Shared sovereignty" isn't great either and it is part of Mexico's plan.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

the Senate and president would be wise to adopt the House Republicans’ approach of promoting attrition of the illegal population through consistent

There will be no attritition so long as we keep hiring them. Less Mexicans come in when the economy is slow.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

This was a disturbingly dumb article for all the reasons you mention

The fact that Aztlan was mentioned was a good clue.

[RKV]

There will be less illegal immigration if we spend law enforcement (and other) resources to stop it. Economics does matter, which is why Mexicans (and others) want to come here in the first place. It's our country and we should decide who gets in, not outsiders.

[Travis McGee]

Here is one fictional look at a possible outcome:

Fernando Ortiz was a ‘landscape engineer’ on Long Island who had demanded to be able to vote, on the basis that he had been paying state and federal taxes for ten years. Actually, he had been stopped from casting a ballot by a poll watcher who had suspected his citizenship status, and (illegally, as it turned out) demanded proof of his identity and legal qualification to vote. Ortiz had won a multi-million dollar settlement against the Republican Party of New York in the subsequent “racial profiling and ethnic intimidation” civil suit, but he did not stop there.

Instead, with massive support from the ACLU and various Hispanic “immigrants rights” foundations, he had pressed his demand to be allowed to vote all the way to the Supreme Court…and he won. The Supreme Court, in its famous 5-4 decision, ruled that negligence in securing America’s borders against illegal immigration on the part of the federal government, could not be held against “undocumented workers who played by the rules and paid their taxes,” once they were established in America—legally or not. The federal government had not taken reasonable efforts to secure the border, and had not pursued "undocumented workers" in the USA. Instead, it openly permitted them most of the benefits of citizenship, and it collected their taxes. "No taxation without representation!" was the cry heard all the way to the Supreme Court. The State of New York had then sleep-walked through an aimless and desultory case for denying the vote—and citizenship—to “undocumented workers.”

Following Ortiz v. New York, a stunned America woke up to discover that there were not only an amazing twenty-two million illegal aliens hiding in plain sight across the land, but that eight million of them immediately qualified to vote. In a nation split 50-50 down party and ideological lines, these eight million new voters were recognized to be the certain majority-makers in future elections, and both parties set record lows for cravenness in pandering to their “needs.” Chief among their “needs” were liberal new family reunification laws, and these instant citizens—illegal aliens only a year before—began bringing the remainders of their families to the USA. Legally.

Overnight, wavering Democrat states became locks, and swing states with large Hispanic populations went solidly “blue.” The result was the recent election which had brought Gobernador Deleon to power in Nuevo Mexico, and had also brought radical Democrats to power in the White House and both houses of congress.

Thus had come the political tsunami which swept all before it, a tidal wave triggered by an undocumented lawn maintenance worker named Fernando Ortiz.

[RKV]

Thanks Travis. I enjoyed your book. Looking forward to the next one.

[gubamyster]

ping

[reelfoot]

Thoughtful and disturbing article.

If American is to continue as a 1st world country with western ideals and values we must do two things, immediately:

1) close the borders to all illegals.
2) radically reform our immigration laws to reduce the number of legal immigrants allowed in, and restrict admission to highly intelligent, highly educated people who have job skills actually needed in this country and who come from countries that are western-oriented in their outlook. (And no, thanks, we don't need millions more just to drive the remaining American bricklayers and roofers out of their jobs so we can pay $3 less an hour.)

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

It's our country and we should decide who gets in, not outsiders

I agree but we ARE the ones deciding ... anytime we hire them.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

radically reform our immigration laws to reduce the number of legal immigrants allowed in, and restrict admission to highly intelligent, highly educated people who have job skills actually needed in this country

There's also a great need for farm laborers. No higher education needed.

[RKV]

As you point out its the ideals and values which matter. I have travelled in Mexico, speak Spanish and follow their news on the internet. No question if I were Mexican (and not part of the "ruling class") I would want to come to the US. I don't blame them, I just think we need to keep our own best interests in mind first. Low wage labor isn't cheap (IMO) so I am not of the "open borders" crowd. These guys have written extensively on the subject - http://www.cis.org.

[RKV]

If what you mean is that hiring illegals is wrong - then I agree. Not clear to me that is your intent.

[dennisw]

Brilliant article. Draws all the right parallels. Thanks Mark

[dennisw]

We already have no go zones for illegal immigrants. Called sanctuary cities. Local police are not allowed to detain and implement expulsion of criminal illegal aliens. Most of whom are Mexicans with Central Americans in second place

[Dane]

Blah, blah, blah, a really cheap attempt to compare Latin American Christians, to the muslim jihadis, France is dealing with fire hoses.

[Travis McGee]

You forgot this major difference:

ALL Mexicans are taught from day one in their official history textbooks that the American Southwest was stolen from them, it is their birthright, they have every right to live in all parts of the "stolen" land, and they do not need to obey our immigration laws, period.

Algerians cannot say the same about France.

Thought I'd point out that difference, which you seemed to overlook.

Also BTW, the Mexican state department still has the "Immigrants Guide" up on their official website, advising Mexicans how best to illegally invade the USA, and play the system once they are inside.

[dennisw]

Read it all Dane and you'll learn from your betters. Those who have thought things though. Despite your protestations you are always on the side of the illegal alien intruder.

[uscit]

Calling people concerned about mass immigration "racist" is a leftist-liberal tactic. And citing the usual blather about how Mexicans are just the new Italians and Irish is a flawed analogy on many counts. If you don't understand that, it's not worth debating with. Get your head out of the sand.

[Travis McGee]

The "sanctuary city" I worry about the most is LA. The critical national infrastructure which runs through what mae be territory under insurrection is vital to our economy. The refineries and ports (LA and Long Beach) and their pipelines, road and rail links will all be in "rebel territory" if TSHTF.

My fear is that during any coming deep recession, when Americans will demand that NO jobs go to illegal aliens, the millions of illegals in LA will be unemployed, but will refuse to go home to Mexico, where the economy will be even worse. Millions of hungry illegal aliens in the LA area will have one powerful "weapon" to yield: threatening the smooth running of the refineries, pipelines, port operations, highways and railroads through "their" territory.

That is a recipe for a major explosion, especially since it will happen when the national economy is already a shambles, and we will need those refineries' output and so on.

[Travis McGee]

Wrong side? I guess it depends on their point of view.

Quisling: a synonym for traitor, someone who collaborates with the invaders of his country.

[RKV]

We ought to treat illegals in the US like Mexico treats illegals in Mexico - i.e. with the military. Take a look at how they operate on their southern border. Fair is fair.

[FreedomSurge]

So there should be no limits at all to immigration?

[dennisw]

I agree with your on such illegal alien terrorism during a recession. Easy to imagine

RULE NUMBER ONE for 3rd world immigrants be they illegal or illegal:
They will never go home willingly. No matter if times are good or bad. They'll lie about it to stupid liberal reporters but they will never go home. Especially now that Hispanic and other alien communities have reached critical mass. That they can disappear into.

The above applies to any dumbass guest worker program GWBush and others propose. They will have anchor babies here and never return to the 3rd world. There is nothing as permanent as a temporary guest worker. This has been proven in Europe.

[Travis McGee]

Until we see a serious multiple fence system built, it's all a joke. A fence system like this one could be built in a matter of months for what we pay out to illegal aliens in the same period of time.

If the Border Patrol had an actual fence system to guard, they could easily do their job, instead of being forced to chase illegals around 100,000 square miles of wide open border land.

[Travis McGee]

Amd we're walking right into this disaster, with our eyes open.

[dennisw]

My fear is that during any coming deep recession, when Americans will demand that NO jobs go to illegal aliens, the millions of illegals in LA will be unemployed, but will refuse to go home to Mexico, where the economy will be even worse. Millions of hungry illegal aliens in the LA area will have one powerful "weapon" to yield: threatening the smooth running of the refineries, pipelines, port operations, highways and railroads through "their" territory.

They work in those places as imported serf calss labor and they can sabotage them

[blackie]

Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!

Support our Minutemen Patriots!

Be Ever Vigilant ~ Bump!

[Moonman62]

Mexicans are Christian and politically passive, and large numbers of them and their children have assimilated thoroughly into the American people.

But even larger numbers of them haven't. And if they are politically passive, why are the Dems and the GOP letting them break all sorts of laws and give them all sorts of freebies in order to get them into the tent?

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

I'm trying to say that we as common Americans are just as guilty for the illegal problem because we are the ones hiring them - not our government. Hopefully my point's clear now LOL.

[taxed2death]

"Not a dumb article at all. The US is absorbing immigrants faster than it can assimilate them. This is "multiculturalism" in practice, and not a good thing. "Shared sovereignty" isn't great either and it is part of Mexico's plan."

You are 100% correct...even though your post is not too "PC".

Some here on FR are really driving while blind.

As far as "shared sovereignty" is concerned, take a look at this:

See this, originally posted by "the gillman" (hope I'm not crossing the wrong line by not asking you first gillman, but more folks need to see this):


Start with this summary by Phyllis Schlafly, staunch conservative and friend to Ronald Reagan.

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/july05/05-07-13.html

...This CFR document, called "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details....

This was the meeting where Bush called the Minutemen "Vigilantes."

...the CFR document calls for "a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution." Get ready for decisions from non-American judges who make up their rules ad hoc and probably hate the United States anyway...

Bye bye Constitution.

... The CFR document demands that we implement "the Social Security Totalization Agreement negotiated between the United States and Mexico." That's code language for putting illegal aliens into the U.S. Social Security system, which is bound to bankrupt the system...

Bye bye your retirement.

...U.S. taxpayers are supposed to create a major fund to finance 60,000 Mexican students to study in U.S. colleges...

How generous of you to support the higher education of all those foreignors. Will you have enough left over for your own children?

... The CFR document calls for allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access" to the United States, including the hauling of local loads between U.S. cities...

Look out for that big scary truck!
Talk about drug smuggling and terrorist heaven.

... To ensure that the U.S. government carries out this plan so that it is "achievable" within five years, the CFR calls for supervision by a North American Advisory Council of "eminent persons from outside government....

See? You don't get to vote at all. You just get to pay and surrender your rights at the door.

You can see the plan here.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=8102

Pay particular attention the portion on "Dissenting Views."
That's where some say they haven't sold us out enough, and the the others say they'll have trouble with, "racists, xenophobes and nationalists" who aparrently don't approve of being robbed to support the utopian dream of these traitors.

The talking points of the OBL's on this site come directly from there.

Here's Senator John Cornyn's bill to establish the first building block of this momentous betrayal.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2941:

Highlights:

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of the Fund shall be--

(1) to promote economic and infrastructure integration among Canada, Mexico, and the United States;

(2) to promote education and economic development in Mexico; and

(3) to reduce the wealth gap between Mexico and Canada, and between Mexico and the United States.

Reduce the wealth gap.
Pure Marxism, from your republican administration.

More:

SEC. 4. PROJECTS FUNDED.

(a) IN GENERAL- The Fund shall make grants for projects to carry out the purposes described in section 3, including projects--

(1) to construct roads in Mexico to facilitate trade between Mexico and Canada, and Mexico and the United States;

(2) to develop and implement post-secondary education programs in Mexico;

(3) to install telecommunications technologies throughout Mexico; and

(4) to construct other infrastructure that will carry out such purposes.

(Part two, there's your children's college fund, going to Mexicans.)

More:

SEC. 5. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FUND.

(a) IN GENERAL- The terms of the agreement establishing the Fund shall, subject to the limitation in subsection (b), require the Governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States to contribute to the Fund.

(Governments? They're talking about pillaging your paychecks!)

The terms of the agreement establishing the Fund shall require that the Fund operate for an initial period of 10 years.

By then, there will be nothing left of the Republic.

[taxed2death]

I'm trying to say that we as common Americans are just as guilty for the illegal problem because we are the ones hiring them - not our government.

Speak for yourself. I will not hire an illegal and I will not do business with those who do.

[reelfoot]

"There's also a great need for farm laborers. No higher education needed."

I'm not a farmer and no expert on agricultural economy, but if we need more farmers, then the high schools should offer courses to prepare young farmers. However, I thought the number of people farming had been steadily dropping even as farms became more efficient with machinery and yielded more per acre.

At any rate, I don't think we should import low-paid laborers here to do work that able-bodied people on welfare can do.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

I will not do business with those who do

No landscaper or what have you is going to tell you they hire illegals.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

I'm not a farmer and no expert on agricultural economy, but if we need more farmers, then the high schools should offer courses to prepare young farmers. However, I thought the number of people farming had been steadily dropping even as farms became more efficient with machinery and yielded more per acre.

I think you are referring to managing a farm. You don't need a high school course to show you how to pick apples off a tree. Some crops can be harvested with machines and some still need human workers. Some crops are more labor intensive than others - vanilla for one.

I remember reading an article about vineyard owners in California. They were saying they couldn't get enough workers, because the construction industry was paying more. They even admitted the majority of their workers were Mexicans and many were illegal. So, there's even competition for illegals.

[reelfoot]

"I think you are referring to managing a farm. You don't need a high school course to show you how to pick apples off a tree. Some crops can be harvested with machines and some still need human workers. Some crops are more labor intensive than others - vanilla for one.

"I remember reading an article about vineyard owners in California. They were saying they couldn't get enough workers, because the construction industry was paying more. They even admitted the majority of their workers were Mexicans and many were illegal. So, there's even competition for illegals."

Oh, no doubt if you're talking about stoop labor we can bring in endless hoards of cheap labor. And, as the article suggests, we can find laborers willing to work even more cheaply than the Mexicans. But what if improvements in machinery further reduces the number of farm laborers needed? What else will the fruit pickers be qualified to do? Will they go on welfare? Commit crime? Or go to a university or technical school to shift careers at taxpayer expense?

The problem is we're importing millions of poorly educated, unskilled peoples who don't have a western outlook. This is not the type of citizenry needed to continue our values and ensure our democratic way of life. I'll pay more for a head of lettuce rather than have the increase in crime, misuse of hospital emergency rooms, and welfare programs by Hispanics in my area. (Most of whom don't seem to be the least interested in assimilating.)

I've travelled in Mexico on a number of occasions, liked it and the people. I am sick of moving Mexico inside of our borders, however.

[janetgreen]

The U.S. is being forcibly-fed MILLIONS of illegal aliens (not immigrants) from a third world country, mostly Mexico. This force feeding is causing us to absorb poverty, disease, ignorance and dependence at a high cost.

They're being forcibly shoved down our throats by our own government, and the laws force us to support them. At least 10 billion bucks every year in California alone!

Will someone please tell me how this invasion is good for us? I live in California, illegal alien heaven, and I know we're being colonized.

[taxed2death]

"They were saying they couldn't get enough workers, because the construction industry was paying more."

Pretzel logic. They did not want to pay a rate that the "market" deemed as fair. Too freakin' bad. Either pay the prevailing wage... or let the grapes rot.

[WatchingInAmazement]

The racist who wrote this could, in 1890, just as easily named the Irish or Italian immigrants.

What did he say that you consider racist?? Really,we'd like to know.

In 1890 many US citizens did complain about massive immigration, and it caused plenty of problems, so THEN we did something about it. Cut it off before it got out of hand.

Mark Krikorian was on Cspan yesterday testifying before congress. Too bad you missed it, you might have learned something.

[don'tbedenied]

Racist. Equating one brown skinned people with the negative characteristics of another. Christian Mexicans are the same as Moslem Arabs? He predicts this. The only thing they have in common is they are not white.
Hence racist.
No I am not in favor of no protection on our borders.
I would not be using the word racist if he had simply listed problems associated with immigration instead of claiming that Mexican immigrants would soon be rioting, burning cars and apparently praising Allah.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

But what if improvements in machinery further reduces the number of farm laborers needed? What else will the fruit pickers be qualified to do? Will they go on welfare? Commit crime? Or go to a university or technical school to shift careers at taxpayer expense?

The same thing was said when machines replaced factory workers and that was in a period when we had far more industry than we do now. Everybody said what will all these people do now? Somehow they found something to do without burdening the rest of society.

The problem is we're importing millions of poorly educated, unskilled peoples who don't have a western outlook. This is not the type of citizenry needed to continue our values and ensure our democratic way of life.

Most of the Europeans that came in the last immigration wave were just that – poor, unskilled, uneducated, etc ..They did find a way to make it. Oh sure some of them got into crime, like the Mafia, but the argument you’re making is already a century old and it’s long been discredited. A lot of those countries did not have our “western outlook”. People came from countries with dictatorships or communists or what have you.

Now before you accuse me of being in favor of massive illegal immigration –I’m not. But if an economy needs unskilled workers, it will begger the government to get them legally.

I'll pay more for a head of lettuce rather than have the increase in crime, misuse of hospital emergency rooms, and welfare programs by Hispanics in my area. (Most of whom don't seem to be the least interested in assimilating.)

That’s you. But the average shopper buys the cheaper product. One reason for the phenomenal success of Wal-Mart.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

The U.S. is being forcibly-fed MILLIONS of illegal aliens (not immigrants) from a third world country, mostly Mexico

Mexico isn't forcing us to hire them, which is why they come.

[Travis McGee]

"Racist. Equating one brown skinned people with the negative characteristics of another. Christian Mexicans are the same as Moslem Arabs? He predicts this. The only thing they have in common is they are not white.

Hence racist."

When this is your only argument, you have lost the argument, and we all see it as plain as day.

But thanks for your replies anyway, because each reply means that 15 more lurkers will read the article as it is bumped to the top.

[reelfoot]

"The same thing was said when machines replaced factory workers and that was in a period when we had far more industry than we do now. Everybody said what will all these people do now? Somehow they found something to do without burdening the rest of society."

That was a different pool of immigrants. Look at the European countries and then look at the Latin American countries. We're not talking about equal achievement levels here.

"That’s you. But the average shopper buys the cheaper product. One reason for the phenomenal success of Wal-Mart."

The average shopper, even one who shops at Wally-World, is also opposed to massive immigration from our southern borders. They know for the couple of bucks they may be saving on a product they are paying increased taxes to make up for it by having to build new schools (staffed by bilingual teachers) and hiring Spanish translators for courts, and paying increased medical costs, automobile insurance costs, etc., etc., ad nauseum. It's just that the Wally-World shopper's opinion doesn't seem to count for much because our elitist leaders refuse to act on this issue.

Our culture is being changed, and not for the better.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

That was a different pool of immigrants. Look at the European countries and then look at the Latin American countries. We're not talking about equal achievement levels here. .

Europe was just as much a mess back then as the Latin American countries are now. Don't forget that the Europeans started the two worse wars in human history. Nazism, communism, fascism, all these "achievements" came out of Europe. 21st century Latin America looks good by comparison.

[reelfoot]

"Europe was just as much a mess back then as the Latin American countries are now. Don't forget that the Europeans started the two worse wars in human history. Nazism, communism, fascism, all these 'achievements' came out of Europe. 21st century Latin America looks good by comparison."

Yes, European countries and the U. S. have engaged in wars, just as have Hispanic countries, and have chosen foolish forms of government at times, as have Latinos. However, it cannot be denied that Latin American countries have lagged behind western (Europe and America) for decades in terms of economic development and political stability. It's not a difference in degree, but in kind. Travel in some of the Central American countries (from whence we are getting most of our huddled masses these days) if you want to see it up close (or go across town and see the local colonia). You may want Central America in your back yard; I do not, nor do the polls indicate that the vast majority of Americans do.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

from whence we are getting most of our huddled masses these days

Most of our "huddled masses" have come from poor and/or politically unstable countries, whether it be Europe in the past or Latin America in the present. People who live in stable wealthy countries do not emigrate en masse.

I do not want South America as my backyard either, but the hispanics of today are not intrinsically worse than the Europeans of yesterday. Both sets of people came from politically backwards and economically tenuous lands.