.jpg)
Posted on 06/16/2007 8:02:53 AM PDT by 3AngelaD
We can all understand the push by big business to keep their steady flow of illegal laborers coming in, strengthening their bargaining position against blue-collar working class Americans. Then again, they already have that today in droves. Why the sudden balls-to-the-wall push to get it all "kosher" right now? Mickey Kaus forwards a theory:
Chertoff and Kyl both seem to have answered that question recently, Kyl in his Wall Street Journal interview and Chertoff on Fox News yesterday: because businesses are starting to worry about efforts to enforce immigration laws at the local level. One state in the vanguard of that effort is Kyl's (and McCain's) home state of Arizona, where the legislature has passed numerous laws (usually vetoed) on the issue, and where the public voted for Prop 200 back in 2004.
To me that says something far more ominous than that Congress is being disingenuous or naïve on the matter. Far from simple being empty promises, this amnesty bill is actually a blatant attempt to head off any attempts at enforcement at all.
I think this is probably right. I think big business realizes that voters are going to extract some very explicit and unequivocal promises from their candidates next year. I think they realize at this point that a number of their champions on this bill are not coming back to Washington after the next election.
Big agriculture and big construction realize that they'll be faced with a new Commander-in-Chief, Democrat or Republican, who will likely have made a list of unequivocal promises to the voters during the campaign. Given the opportunity to build up public goodwill with a series of big, high-profile immigration busts in her first six months of office, does anyone think that President Hillary would pass it up? If she's anywhere near as calculating as her reputation suggests, there's not a chance she'll pass up that opportunity.
A Republican President would feel less need for high-profile token efforts, but may bring in a Justice Department that actually cares about national security. (How crazy would that be?) If you're an employer who's been skirting the law for years with a wink and a nod, this change in the winds has to be keeping you up at night--with good reason. Some CEOs looking at public opinion polls and knowing their employment rolls haven't been even close to right with God, have to be dealing with some serious heartburn at the thought of angry villagers at the corporate gates demanding massive fines and/or a few years in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
If the employers can just get across the line on this, they've significantly reduced their exposure. This Amnesty Bill represents a sort of "get out of jail free" card for these executives. Whether it'll actually work out that way is another matter. They see the writing on the wall, and they're pulling out the stops to protect their own hides, even if they have to wreck their own country to do it. Of course, jamming this piece of sh*** down our throats only adds to the long list of reasons we're already pissed as hell at the employers and their elected cronies.
This may be your time, fellas. You may have the upper hand now. The men in power are your boys, and you may get them to vote how you like, even against the clear will of the people who sent them there. Enjoy it while it lasts, but don't forget it for a second: our time is coming. You have the cash, but we have the numbers. A whole lot of us have damn long memories. We're gonna remember every bit of this sordid ordeal. And payback, as they say, is a bitch.
But the bell CAN and Will be “unrung,” when the economy inevitably cycles into a recession/depression, and there is a desperate struggle for ANY job, no matter how menial.
At that point, Joe and Judy Sixpack, both D’s and R’s, will join in a human tsunami to revoke the Z-visas. No pol will be able to stand against that tide of desperate, raging anger, without provoking CW2, which may occur anyway.
Joe 6P isn’t going to stand in a line for a job with Pedro Valdez, and say, “Oh, you take the job, I don’t mind losing my house. After all, you have a Z-visa. By all means, take the job.”
No, that’s not going to happen. J6P is going to say, “Hey Pedro, where you from? What? No speaky English? Then GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!”
And that will happen millions and millions of times over. The Z-visas will be revoked by popular outrage, by pols who want to stay in power.
Or there will be a CW2.
Those are the two outcomes, once the economy tanks.
As opposed to a constitutional, sovereign republic, what choices are YOU thinking of?
Have you read Aristotle on this?
I am interested in your response in regards to what you considered the "blatantly obvious".
No, once they are legal, we can't declare them illegal. Thge ACLU, La Raza, the Catholic church, the Dems and SCOTUS will ensure that they retain their legal status and are allowed to stay.
Joe 6P isn’t going to stand in a line for a job with Pedro Valdez, and say, “Oh, you take the job, I don’t mind losing my house. After all, you have a Z-visa. By all means, take the job. ”No, that’s not going to happen. J6P is going to say, “Hey Pedro, where you from? What? No speaky English? Then GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!”
Dream on. Ain't going to happen. We are a nation of laws and they will be used against us.
Or there will be a CW2.
Or we become two different countries based on cultural and linguistic identity.
By then the elites will have relocated.
No...Even if they legalize 25 million criminals, it will doing nothing to stop the next 25 million illegals that will enter to undercut the wages of the newly legalized illegals.
It's a vicious, never ending circle.
That goes without saying. We know that from the last anmesty in 1986.
“Even if provisional “Z-visas” are given to all of the illegals after the bill is passed, they would probably be revoked by law, due to public outrage if a major terrorist attack is traced to covert jihadists blending in with illegal aliens.”
Good point!
Aristotle? Got to find a common ground if this exchange is to continue.
Not lately. I think it best we just end this wandering exchange.
This won't happen peacefully. The cultural/linguistic regions are far to comingled. Look at India / Pakistan or the Balkans to see the model: civil war, ethnic cleansing, and only then partition.
Seems to be a point of contention, see 183. Time will tell.
Only a few thousand can “relocate.” They are important, but statistically insignificant. All of the PTB can’t relocate, they will be stuck in the society they have wrecked.
“Joe 6P isn’t going to stand in a line for a job with Pedro Valdez, and say, “Oh, you take the job, I don’t mind losing my house. After all, you have a Z-visa. By all means, take the job. ”No, that’s not going to happen. J6P is going to say, “Hey Pedro, where you from? What? No speaky English? Then GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!”
“Dream on. Ain’t going to happen. We are a nation of laws and they will be used against us.”
We are no longer a nation of laws. Bush refuses to enforce the ones he disagrees with.
Or there will be a CW2.
“Or we become two different countries based on cultural and linguistic identity.”
In the last 10 years in California, the illegals have become militant, and otherwise surly. They no longer ask, they demand. The current crop wants reconquista, and it is they who would cause a war. America is nothing like Canada in this respect.
20 million peasants from a criminally corrupt country have
already fallen easy prey to white leftists, and La Raza. They have brought their lawless ways to America. They already are responsible for much of the drug dealing, and criminal identity theft. Years ago, they we docile, and kept to themselves. Now, at least in California, they are mean, and hungry for power. They will not relent, as there are too many malevolent forces here to help them. In only six years, they have taken over town after town, from Boston to Los Angeles. Much damage has already been done. Amnesty will likely cause a civil war.
I think any potential CW will have a very different face in the different regions. Cali is lost, the anglos will accomodate, try to hang on in enclaves, or flee. In the non-Aztlan cities, the enclaves will be reversed, and ethnic cleanding will work in both directions.
Bottom line: there will not be 50 United States in 20 years, under our present constitution.
“Cali is lost, the anglos will accomodate, try to hang on in enclaves, or flee.”
I fled 16 months ago: )I am trying to close out my business interests there
“Bottom line: there will not be 50 United States in 20 years, under our present constitution”
Yep. The “general plan” of the powers that be.
bttt
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.