Skip to comments.La Reconquista -- Amnesty's Elephant in the Living Room(Long Article)
Posted on 07/31/2005 10:15:50 AM PDT by SC33
Four decades ago Congress took a leap into the unknown and passed the immigration amendments of 1965. The law abolished what remained of the 1924 national-origin quotas and made family reunification the main basis for admission to this country. In so doing, it set in motion massive shifts in the size, composition and culture of the American people. It also changed radically how the American people view immigration law and its enforcement. Among the laws many baneful consequences has been a large increase in our population who are here illegally. The 2000 Census of Population estimated that the number of illegal (or undocumented, as euphemism would have it) immigrants in America stood at 8.7 million.(1) As the illegal population now exhibits net annual increases of about 400,000 to 500,000,2 the current total figure is likely well in excess of 10 million. More than 3 percent of all persons residing in the U.S. thus have no business being here.
(Excerpt) Read more at thesocialcontract.com ...
I had never even heard of this "Social Contract Press." Anybody know anything about it? Is it a serious organization?
Our government, led by business interests, knew exactly what it was doing in importing all these illegals. They have placed cheap labor above national identity and American culture. It wasn't any accidental policy, and they've deliberately avoided taking steps like employer enforcement that would cure it.
As I've said before, American culture is heading out the door, on a nationwide basis. The best you can do is find the right small town to live in, with a high cost of living that will deter the third world refugees our government seems so eager to import. That's really the only thing I've figured out I can do about this situation- find the right place to live in.
I haven't heard of the organization either, but the author of the article has impeccable credentials:
Carl F. Horowitz, Ph.D. is a Washington, D.C.-area policy consultant. Previously, he had been a Washington correspondent with Investors Business Daily; housing and urban affairs policy analyst with The Heritage Foundation; and an assistant professor of urban and regional planning at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. His doctorate is in urban planning and policy development from Rutgers University.
I despise illegal immigration, but any talk of Texas, California, etc trying to secede is nonsense. As the Civil War showed, secession requires a great military force. The South had an outstanding army with able generals and still wasn't able to get it done.
Hispanics WILL have a political majority in those areas very shortly, but in the current American system being in the ethnic majority doesn't mean a hill of beans, legally speaking. The current situation of white Americans, legally disadvantaged by racial quotas, etc. certainly shows that.
Finally, I'm skeptical about how militant against white people the average Mexican actually is. The fact is, Mexico places the white citizens in its own country on a pedestal- most of the anchormen, actors, politicians, etc are white.
I think you are right, most Mexicans would welcome an American takeover.
Interesting premise, but I honestly don't think the average Mexican immigrant to the US longs for a return to the Mexican system. They know better than we do what a basket case Mexico is. Plus, like I said, in Mexico itself the white people control the levers of government and society, and the Mestizos and Amerindian citizens, who form a large majority, don't challenge that. I just don't see revolt against "the system" being part of the Mexican mindset. And our "system" in the US is far kinder to them than what they had in Mexico.
In a recent poll, 58% of mexicans living in the Southwest believe that the land rightfully belongs to Mexico.
Annexization of Mexico would disabuse them of that notion.
I especially liked the last line in this portion of the article:
We Americans haven't really forgotten our philosophical roots. But a large portion of us has come to render these roots of passing importance. The old verities are good for Fourth of July oratory and a few other special occasions, but not good for legislation, law enforcement and court decisions.
[R]egardless of one's ethno-religious origins, we are poorer for ignoring the process by which the American nation came to be. Public policy debate in this country is heavily circumscribed by an unwritten rule that sovereignty patriotism is for squares, if not necessarily bigots. And who wants to be a square?
The Center for Immigration Studies' Mark Krikorian identifies this sensibility as "post-American":
"Let me be clear what I mean by a post-American. He's not an enemy of America not Alger Hiss or Jane Fonda or Louis Farrakhan. He's not necessarily even a Michael Moore or Ted Kennedy. A post-American may actually still like America, but the emotion resembles the attachment one might feel to, say, suburban New Jersey it can be a pleasant place to live, but you're always open to a better offer. The post-American has a casual relationship with his native country, unlike a patriot. Put differently, the patriot is married to America; the post-American is just shacking up.
If I remember correctly Bill Clinton said in his state of the union address of 2000 that in order to make a more perfect union that the whites were bound to become a minority in the entirety of the USA as they would soon be in California.
That has been the big hang up with border policy and immigration.
The current peace in the USA is got at the price of promising the darker races that one day the USA will be theirs.
If border policy were changed it would put in doubt this promise.
thanks for his bio , FairOpinion , looks good
1. The key difference is that in Mexico you dont' have political correctness to the degree we have here. The MSM and political elites will make sure the average Mexican understands the White Man has oppressed them.
2. Even if there is no civil war, perse, there will be a decrease in the quality of life (more crowded), while the cost (especially social costs) will increase. Sure, some goods and services will be cheaper, but the overall cost will outweight the benefits. Of course, the elites will still have their enclaves, so they won't care either.
Face it, the "Grow at any Cost" members of both parties have sold us down the river.
That's why Clinton should take the African's offer for Clelsea's hand in marriage.
If the following portion of his speech is what you're referring to, Ol' Slick 'n' Slimy didn't come right out and put it that way.
He said that in less than 50 years (now 45 years) there would be no one majority in the U.S. and, of course, good old California is leading the way. He also prattled on about celebrating diversity, blah, blah, blah.
Within 10 years -- just 10 years -- there will be no majority race in our largest state of California. In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in America. In a more interconnected world, this diversity can be our greatest strength. Just look around this chamber. Look around. We have members in this Congress from virtually every racial, ethnic, and religious background. And I think you would agree that America is stronger because of it.
[M]odern science has confirmed what ancient faiths has always taught: the most important fact of life is our common humanity. Therefore, we should do more than just tolerate our diversity -- we should honor it and celebrate it.
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.