Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

L’Intifada en Los Estados Unidos
National Review ^ | 17 November 2005 | Mark Krikorian

Posted on 11/17/2005 9:03:55 AM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: aliens; france; frenchmuslims; immigrantlist; immigration; krikorian; parisriots
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 next last
To: Dane

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.


21 posted on 11/17/2005 9:39:32 AM PST by dennisw (You shouldn't let other people get your kicks for you - Bob Dylan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: don'tbedenied

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.


22 posted on 11/17/2005 9:42:34 AM PST by uscit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; RKV

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.


23 posted on 11/17/2005 9:44:53 AM PST by Travis McGee (--- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
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.

24 posted on 11/17/2005 9:46:03 AM PST by Travis McGee (--- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

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.


25 posted on 11/17/2005 9:48:39 AM PST by RKV ( He who has the guns, makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: don'tbedenied

So there should be no limits at all to immigration?


26 posted on 11/17/2005 9:52:11 AM PST by FreedomSurge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; Dane

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.


27 posted on 11/17/2005 9:55:09 AM PST by dennisw (You shouldn't let other people get your kicks for you - Bob Dylan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RKV
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.


28 posted on 11/17/2005 9:55:36 AM PST by Travis McGee (--- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

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


29 posted on 11/17/2005 9:57:27 AM PST by Travis McGee (--- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
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

30 posted on 11/17/2005 9:57:57 AM PST by dennisw (You shouldn't let other people get your kicks for you - Bob Dylan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster

Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!

Support our Minutemen Patriots!

Be Ever Vigilant ~ Bump!


31 posted on 11/17/2005 9:58:53 AM PST by blackie (Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RKV
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?

32 posted on 11/17/2005 10:01:24 AM PST by Moonman62 (Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKV

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.


33 posted on 11/17/2005 10:01:26 AM PST by A Ruckus of Dogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 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."

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.


34 posted on 11/17/2005 10:06:55 AM PST by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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


35 posted on 11/17/2005 10:12:31 AM PST by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs
"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.
36 posted on 11/17/2005 10:16:35 AM PST by reelfoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: taxed2death
I will not do business with those who do

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

37 posted on 11/17/2005 10:35:03 AM PST by A Ruckus of Dogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: reelfoot
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.

38 posted on 11/17/2005 10:42:45 AM PST by A Ruckus of Dogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs

"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.


39 posted on 11/17/2005 10:54:46 AM PST by reelfoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RKV
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.

40 posted on 11/17/2005 10:55:47 AM PST by janetgreen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson