Posted on 01/02/2008 9:23:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
What's the matter with Iowa?
Maybe I'm experiencing a little geographic jealously. When I moved to California, I assumed that San Diego - as a border town - would be ground zero in the immigration debate. So when did Sioux City, Des Moines and Cedar Rapids cut in line?
If Iowa is, in fact, the new center of the immigration debate, what sense does that make? If you've been paying attention, you know that despite the lip service given to border security and fighting terrorism, much of the debate is driven by demographics and the concern that the United States is becoming too Latino. In some parts of the country, such anxiety might make sense. But who would have imagined you'd find traces of it in a region that is still overwhelmingly Anglo?
According to the 2000 Census, Iowa is about 94 percent white, 3 percent Hispanic, 2 percent black and 1 percent Asian.
That is not exactly a majority-minority state in the offing. And yet, we're told the outcome of the Iowa caucuses - especially on the Republican side - could come down to the candidates' views on immigration.
For that, you can blame those Iowa voters who, from the sound of it, can't find anything else to talk about at town hall meetings throughout the Hawkeye State.
That's fine. Folks in that red state can talk about immigration until they're blue in the face. But they should at least have the decency to talk about it honestly.
Instead, some of them give the impression that Mexican immigrants are launching a full-scale invasion of Iowa, soaking up public benefits, subverting the culture and undermining the English language. They never acknowledge that immigrants are making their way to the heartland because someone there is offering them jobs, profiting from their labor and pumping tax dollars into the local economy to the benefit of everyone - even the complainers.
Someone needs to tell that to the retiree who grilled Fred Thompson at a gathering at the Music Man Square museum in Mason City. Concerned that Mexicans were plotting to retake the Southwest and insisting that illegal immigrants were a burden to taxpayers, the woman finally quit beating around the bush and got around to what really bothered her.
Surprise: It's the changing culture, and specifically how - even in Iowa - the Spanish language pops up at the most inopportune moments. In what was obviously a gross exaggeration, the questioner claimed that, when Iowans call the power company, "everything is in Spanish" and that she finds it all "sickening."
You want sickening? Consider Thompson's lily-livered response. "You are so, so right," he told the retiree. He even suggested that English be the national language. Instead of providing leadership by telling the woman to knock off the nativist lingo and acknowledge that illegal immigration is a self-inflicted wound, Thompson opted to pander. Just like everyone else.
Doesn't any of this immigration narrative sound familiar to native Iowans? It should. Nearly 100 years ago, another ethnic group found itself on the cultural skillet in that state. Its members had last names such as "Schultz" or "Braun" or "Kalb."
As Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Dale Maharidge points out in his insightful book, "Denison, Iowa," the first German immigrants arrived in Iowa shortly after it became a state in 1846. For several decades, they built "Germantowns," created German schools and churches, and founded German brotherhood associations. And, about this, no one seemed to mind much.
But then the United States entered World War I in 1917. And an anti-German crusade began. It may have been cloaked in concerns over the war, but it quickly focused on the German language, German newspapers and German culture.
In Denison, which is now a town of about 8,000 people, German-Americans were beaten and piles of German books were set afire. English-only laws were passed.
Critics will reject the comparison and point out the obvious: that many of the Latino immigrants now streaming into Iowa are coming illegally and that the Germans came legally.
That's true. German immigrants who helped settle Iowa in the late 1800s did come legally. There was no way to come illegally until the 1920s. And yet it made little difference. They were still mistreated. That's because the issue was never legality. It was the same thing that fuels the discussion today: fear of change.
It all makes for an ugly chapter in history that Iowans would be wise not to repeat.
My grandmother was watched by the FBI during WWII due to her recent arrival from Germany, as she should have been!
He rarely does. Usually just bigoted rantings.
Hmmm, now when the Euros started going around the world changing cultures, that today is referred to as imperialist colonization, and is apparently the root of all evil in the world.
But when Mexicans or anyone else moves here and refuse to come legally or even assimilate, that’s ok.
Can a human being really be this stupid?
This jerkwipe would have us believe that the only reason that German immigrants came to the United States legally pre 1920 was that they didn't have the illegal option. I think it ought to be unnecessary to point out just how completely absurd this notion is.
But beyond that, his notion is that Iowans feared Germans. WRONG. Iowans WERE Germans.
But, after the start of WW I, Iowans feared Germany. The United States was at war with Germany. But, German Americans were well along the process of assimilating anyway, in Iowa and elsewhere.
Today, the situation is not at all the same with respect to Hispanic illegals. They are NOT in the United States to assimilate.
They are here to colonize.
So, excuse me if I count myself among those who do not want to "embrace the changes" that Hispanic colonization will bring the our nation - and NOT just in the Southwest.
This sort of change OUGHT to be feared. More to the point, it ought to be FOUGHT.
Tooth and nail.
They are here to colonize.
Uh... what were the Czechs doing around Cedar Rapids and the Germas around... oh... the Amana COLONIES?
Come off it... a three percent “Hispanic” population (which includes Mexican-Americans, Cubans, Argentines, etc). is not an invasion. And, from what I’m told, the dangerous immigrant gangs in Des Moines are BOSNIANS.
Ruben has been spewing his pro-Hispanic agenda and only that since his days at the Dallas Morning News. One trick racist pony.
Iowans are not permitted to vote on their perception of benefit to the entire nation. They may only base their vote on events that happen solely in Iowa. Also, only Anglos are allowed to be concerned about illegal immigration. All other people of color are not permitted to have any opinion other than being in favor of it.
And if that makes any sense to you, you are a Washington Democrat, a Washington RINO, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, or a member of La Raza or some other grievance group.
ping
Absolutely shocking that a presidential candidate would care about the well-being of US citizens over illegal aliens! Doesn’t Thompson realize that illegals are sacrosanct?
Brimelow, Wash Times, VDare, & Free Republic posters say it is the hispanics, not just the illegal hispanics.
Tancredo told us is just isn't the illegals. He says the illegals have turned Florida into a turd world cesspool.
Correction: He(tancredo) says the legals have turned Florida into a turd world cesspool
I like your courage. These discussions, IMO, seem to bring out some serious ugliness.
The thread you linked to demonstrates that. The counter charge of bigotry levied at the author of that piece was quite interesting.
I've got a link that you may wish to see. It starts in at post five, takes two different courses, but one of these courses never get its proper resolution (even though the FReeper in question has since made other posts in the forum, leading me to believe he ducked post#32).
>>Rueben is right.<<
The retiree who said “everything is in Spanish” probably was exaggerating (but these days who knows). For one thing, Navarrette seems to read the retiree’s mind to conclude that the Spanish language at the power company was “what really bothered her.” Second, all we have is Navarrette’s version of this conversation, and based on his track record, I don’t consider him an impartial judge of anything having to do with immigration. I thought that Thompson was saying that he agreed with the lady about illegal immigration.
But I did not witness the conversation, and might be wrong about what Thompson was actually saying she was right about. I can’t read his mind any better than Navarrette can.
Spanish language options in phone systems don’t bother me all that much in themselves, since I have taken the trouble to learn Spanish, and all things being equal, knowing more than one language (and being acquainted with other cultures) is a good thing. However, there seems to be a slippery slope at play, which starts with such things as signs in Spanish, and eventually results in sanctuary cities, law enforcement refusing to help deport criminal illegals, and taxpayers footing the bill for lawyers for illegals.
Is Navarrette is hinting that Thompson is a racist? Do you agree with him? If so, I think you are sadly mistaken.
Yes, I’ll bet some posters on FR are racists, but all forums like this have some fringe elements. I’ll bet some far-left forums have some jihadists on them.
>> Brimelow, Wash Times, VDare, & Free Republic posters say it is the hispanics, not just the illegal hispanics.<<
As far as I can tell Thompson, says he is for legal immigration. However, legal immigration, if not carefully controlled, can lead to problems. We still don’t track when visa bearers leave, or don’t leave.
I actually like Mexican music more than a lot of the moron music produced in the USA, and I have read Quixote and other authors in Spanish. I consider many Hispanic people intellectually equal to our best and brightest. But those people are not necessarily the ones who are admitted legally. Maybe we are taking in too many uneducated immigrants. We should be able to ask that question without feeling guilty.
Rub is right on the german thing, my grandfather was still a bit bitter about that era. But he like the other open borders loonies like fear open inquiry and wish hide behind smears.
Navarette, like most in the liberal msm, lies by ommission. He tries to confuse readers by not distinguishing between LEGAL immigrants and ILLEGAL aliens,
These idiots always configure this as "fear of change" or "fear of the unknown"...fact is we don't fear you people one bit....and we KNOW very well so there is nothing unknown....we don't WANT to change our culture to that of a third world backwards country..there is nothing endearing about Mexican culture...it's part of why that country is a hell hole....quit flattering yourself by thinking we are afraid of you or your influence...
That's it exactly....I keep coming upon articles about "The Latinization of North America" and how it is inevitable...yeah...in their dreams....
Now Joe has mentioned the "ugliness" and Navarette mentions ugly in the last line. This "ugliness" comes from the PR campaign waged by the hardliners against immigrants to demonize and subhumanize the immigrants.
Navarette's mentions what Thompson, or any other elected/seeking election official, might say to pander to the ugliness. Since we are talking about what Thompson said in Iowa, I would what Thompson said is very mild compared to ugliness of what Iowa rep Steve King has said.
It is all pandering, including what Steve King has said. No matter how many Americans Steve King says(lies about) these immigrants kill, the pork processors in Iowa need immigrant labor and Steve King can't get re-elected without the campaign contributions from those pork processors. Likewise, Thompson, in order to have a chance at winning the nomination, has to pander to the ugliness.
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.