Posted on 04/14/2006 9:45:50 AM PDT by Once-Ler
"The GOP is split between free market and religious Republicans and its protectionist wing. The rats do not want to see any solution that might improve America and by proxy the Republican party. There are business interests and money to be made by the border protection lobby. There is a lot of interest in keeping the status quo."
It seems so yes. I ran into an interesting article recently. First I thought, because of the name, that The New Republic, in wich it was featured, was a republican leaning paper, but after reading a little about it in Wikipedia I learned the truth.
Here is the article, That's Hospitality:
http://www.tnr.com/user/nregi.mhtml?i=20060417&s=editorial041706
What they are saying is that a Guest workers program would be Un-American, but they seem in my opinion to turn the argument for it completely on its head.
They use the dreadful situation in Europe of immigrants, many of wich do not have citizenship (that is I beliewe only the case in Germany), and their descendants that came during the 70´s as cheap labor and vere thought of as temporary workers, and live still in gettoes outside of the national community of each country.
And their argument is that it is Un-American to create such an underclass in the US with a guest workers program that will never be able to become part of the society and become Americans. I think they are correct in that, as the US is based upon the principle of inclusiveness, people coming there and becoming Americans, and becoming proud of their new identity.
This is exactly what we in Europe lack, a system and tradition of inclusiveness, where foreigners can become part of the existing nation. Our answer has been the idea of multiculturalism, wich has been nothing short of disastrous, resulting in balcanisation of our nations.
But the article turns the argument on its head. These people were intended as temporal guest workers, but they stayed on, wich europeans just did not imagine they would initially. A guest workers program would clearly define between those that come to be temporarely and return back home, and those that vere allowed to stay and become Citizens and thus part of the Nation.
But most importantly, the situation in Europe is replicating itself in the US, with the latinos coming into the country and staying indefinetaly, and never become part of the sociaty, never part of the Nation. They live in a strange limbo of not being legally in the country, but not being illegally either. A limbo similar to those living in the European (at least German) gettos and having extended right to stay, but can never become part of the existing sociaty and Nation.
It is the current system (of accepted illegality) in the US that is replicating the problem we are facing in Europe, not a guest workers program. With enforced border control and somekind of enforcement with a way out for those already in the country that is most likely the solution.
Best wishes,
Leifur
Ps. It is strange, when comparing the situation in Europe and the US that european nations decided to import muslims en masse to our nations when in nead of a work force, instead of the latinos, wich are much closer to us culturally, having a culture largely originated in Europe. It is I beliewe one of a long line of European mistakes.
That is an excellent observation. The Catholic Latino immigration is much closer to American culture than the Muslim immigration endured by Europe. Another factor in this complex equation is the tensions that would be created by deporting illegals back to Mexico. It was not that long ago that America and Mexico were at war. I don't doubt we could win another war, but it would not be an ideal result. Building a American "Berlin-Wall," tearing families apart, and injecting millions of able bodied jobless men in to a deplorable economy probably would make that war more likely.
Thanks again for a thoughtful reply. Often when one is close to a situation, it is difficult to view it objectively. I enjoyed your insights.
"Thanks again for a thoughtful reply. Often when one is close to a situation, it is difficult to view it objectively. I enjoyed your insights."
Thank you Once-Ler, I hope your Nation can find a good long term solution to this issue.
"That is an excellent observation. The Catholic Latino immigration is much closer to American culture than the Muslim immigration endured by Europe."
Exactly, and they are also much closer to European culture. They and their descendands are much more likely to have become integral part of their adopted nations without much problems. It is though always likely that there will be gettoizing and balcanization when a large influx of people from the same or similar bacground move into a new nation.
F.e. are many Poles coming to Iceland to live and work. They adapt well and I beliewe that within a generation or two they will have become Icelandic. But as there are so many of them, it is slowing and even hindering integration. If to many from a single or to similar background come it will become harder than if people come as individuals from all over the world.
But even though people of European stock are more financially well of in Latin America, then f.e. was Argentina, the country with the most European of populations in Latin America, in severe economic problems during the 70´s, the same time Europe needed bigger workforce.
And people in Argentina came from Germany, Sweeden, France and other countries that desperately needep people during this time. It seems straigth forward that they should have tried to get those people to return, but istead they took poor ignorant people from a very different culture in the Anatolian higlands of Turkey and from other muslim countries.
Some even beliewe this was deliberate by some cinister forces, see article in Brussels Journal:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/840
"Bat Ye’or convincingly argues that the transformation of Europe into Eurabia is the result of a deliberate strategy that was foolishly set in motion by French Gaullists who wanted to create a European-Arab counterweight to the United States. Today the European Union is continuing this policy, which aims to create a united Mediterranean continent based on a symbiosis between the Northern and the Southern shores of the Mediterranean Sea."
Why?
I should not have to answer this question, it is so straigth forward. But here are couple of points:
- First, although Mekka has absolutely no religious value to me, I know that if we bombed Mekka, the Vailing Wall and the main churches on the historical sites in the Holy Land, wich have religious value to me, would be destroyed in horrible vawe of revenge, wich would also claim the lives of thousands of innocent people
- Such an action would play into the hands of the islamofacist, wich want to unify muslims around their extremism. Instead we need to draw a wedge between the extremists and the ordinary muslim that wants, just like any other ordinary man pursue a life of happiness. That wedge is only possible if we can convince muslims that we are not fighting against islam per se, but against the facists that want to hijack their religion (although I beliewe islam is extremely ripe for such a hijacking).
We must provide them with the alternative to their left winged dictators and their religious dictators, that is a genuine democracy and individual liberty. When that happens, some will then choose to become christians (and of other religons)wich is exactly what the extremists ara afraid of, but if that is our goal also, we must show muslims that christianity is not just as crazy as islam, but such a bombing would show the opposite.
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.