Posted on 01/25/2016 1:25:52 PM PST by Kaslin
In their latest unbiased, dispassionate look at the weighty issues of the day, the editorial board at the Washington Post has decided to tackle the illegal alien problem with a piece titled, Immigration in Reverse. This one was worth a peek, if only for the number of logical breakdowns which take place along the way, but also for the way they choose to once again label anyone who supports border control or has questions about Syrian “refugees” flooding the nation as “nativists.”
THE ANTI-ILLEGAL immigrant rancor and outright nativism afoot in the Republican primary field give rise to the impression that illegal immigration has soared to unprecedented levels and that the border is no more than a line in the sand, scarcely monitored and easily crossed. The truth diverges wildly from that rhetoric, as a pair of recent studies demonstrate.
Notwithstanding the demagoguery of Donald Trump and some of his GOP rivals, the number of illegal immigrants in this country, which has declined each year since 2008, is now at its lowest level since 2003, and the percentage of undocumented immigrants likewise is at its lowest point since the turn of the century.
The editorial relies on some data from two studies which purport to pin hard numbers on the volume of people engaged in illegal activity. It’s a sketchy bit of science on the best of days, but let’s assume that at least the trends are running in the correct direction. Perhaps there are fewer illegal aliens in the country (in total) right now than a few years ago. All that means is that some progress is being made, but even taking the WaPo’s numbers at face value you’re still talking about more than ten million criminals. How that’s supposed to make anyone sleep better at night or look differently at the illegal immigration battle is a mystery.
It’s also worth highlighting the great pains the editors go to and the hoops they jump through in order to avoid referring to these people in a legally correct fashion. Shockingly, they do manage to stutter out the phrase “illegal immigrants” in the second paragraph, but it skews wildly after that. Mexican immigration… undocumented immigrants… Mexican-born immigrants, roughly half of them undocumented. It’s almost painful to read.
But their final pitch in the article may be the most baffling. They want all of your nativists to know that if you keep up your shenanigans, we may run out of illegals before too long.
Republican rhetoric on immigration has not caught up to those numbers, nor to the reality that the U.S. economy, like other Western economies, cannot function without low-wage, low-skill labor, which Mexico has supplied. An estimate 7 million-plus undocumented immigrants, most of them Mexicans, are employed in this country. Mr. Trump's fantasies of mass deportation notwithstanding, they will not be replaced by native-born Americans. At some point, Republicans will need to grapple with that reality.
Wait… you’re describing Mexicans as people with low skills who should be willing to work for peanuts? Isn’t that a little, er… racist?
This argument comes across as yet another parallel to the discussions we’ve been having here about the Syrian flood currently washing over the European Union. There’s nothing inherently “wrong” with having nationalist tendencies and valuing the culture of your nation. Some nations are a bit more homogeneous, such as Japan, while others are more diverse. America, for example, has a broad spectrum of cultures from the west coast to the northeast and the deep south. But you find Americans in all those places who will stand by their fellow citizens from other parts of the country rather than embracing some interloper with an ISIS flag showing up in the neighborhood.
The national temperature has been shifting on this question, with less and less tolerance for foreign threats and the undermining of our culture. The Washington Post’s editors are coming down on the wrong side of history on this one and may soon be left behind.
Oh.. another liberal name for me. Thanks, and I must say it is a welcome relief from the usual __phobe or __ism that I am used to.
Nonetheless, I will embrace it and wear it with honor just like all the other names they give me.
We have to stop allowing them to control the narrative that a ‘nativist’ is a bad thing.
And yet there are millions of able bodied Americans on welfare.
And they wear perfume.
“the number of illegal immigrants in this country, which has declined each year since 2008”
Obama’s economy is so bad that even illegal aliens don’t want to come here.
“the U.S. economy, like other Western economies, cannot function without low-wage, low-skill labor, which Mexico has supplied. “
“Who is going to mow our yards and clean our houses?” HRC
Another manipulator who wants you to feel guilty for what you believe.
By their definition only "indigenous pipples" can be nativists because only they are natives to begin with.
But then, expecting internal consistency from the Left is like expecting sorghum molasses out of a possum's rear end.
Headline: WASHINGTON POST ATTACKS NATIVE AMERICANS! !
I will bet that one reason we have fewer illegals entering the country is because they have changed the definition of “illegal.”
Easy fix, in two steps:
#1: replace the criminal gangs of Mexican and OTM criminals with immigrants from Nepal and Bhutan. There are about 28 million Nepalese, who for years have fought the good fight to delay the takeover of their country by the Chineese Communist ant-people empire, but the end is pretty well upon them, as it is for the Bhutanese, and as it was for Tibet. The Nepalese for the last ten generations have sent the best of their young sons to serve in the British [NATO] Army as Gurkhas, and those who know soldiering well place them in the top five of all light military units. So open the doors to about ten million of them, those fierce, fighting, hard-working anti-communists, and enlist their aid as new Americans in throwing the Mexican Indio criminal invaders out.
THat's step one. Step two is to use the initial effort as a template to similarly introduce a sizable proportion of the 25 million equally anticommunist Taiwanese Chinese to this country, probably concurrent with a Red Chinese invasion of their former homeland as well.
That'll put the numbers back in our favor. No room or jobs for them here? Let them repopulate Iraq or Afghanistan once we've emptied those places of our sworn enemies. And there are other places where they could serve as a solid buffer against anti-American interests.
The liberals, Communists, Democrats, perverts and invaders don't like the idea. Kick them out and replace each of them with a Nepalese, Bhutanese or Taiwanese refugee. After all, if those Asian-hating racists don't want them here, they don't really belong in this country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.