Posted on 01/02/2002 7:00:39 AM PST by Pokey78
It isn't so much immigrants who are taking up affirmative actions slots (Asians certainly get no benefit from AA), but native-born minorities.
Many affirmative action spots go to hispanics, which means that eventually the sons and daughters of hispanic immigrants will be eligible.
Hispanic immigrants are taking full advantage of the welfare state right now, which I notice you didn't bother to dispute. What makes you think it won't be the same with AA?
They have been overwhelmingly successful in inculcating Native-born Americans with a sense of self-loathing and limitation. One could argue that many Americans limit the children they bring into the world because of concerns for over-population. And, of course, any environmentalist worth his salt would argue that the human population is the single greatest threat to the health of the environment.
And yet every allowable opinion on the mass immigration policies of the last 30 years (far "left" and far "right", or tweedledum and tweedle-dumber) has been overwhelmingly favorable.
They also limit reproduction because they have been taught that material wealth equals success and also because 50% of their earnings are redistributed--NOT to the poor or sick--but rather to the bureaucracy that enlarges itself with every election cycle. And the bureaucracy--government and corporate--is one of the greatest boosters of mass immigration. The same corporate/statist bureaucracy that funds "population control" everywhere on the planet.
(The only Federal bureaucracy that has ever been in danger of being trimmed since WWII is the military. And even calling it "trimming" is laughable in the context of the fact that we spend 14 times more on defense than the entire rest of the world put together. But even that "threat" has been diminished now that George Bush has declared eternal war against "terrorism" and "evil".)
The most interesting debate since the Lincoln/Douglas debates would surely have been a Buchanan/Nader debate. And yet both these men are marginal characters in our "free" country.
Already only a minority of "citizens" vote in our carefully controlled election "process".
It's all very curious to a simple person like me.....
You're the one who butted in on a posting that I made to another member. I usually save my banter for those who ask for it. The next time...maybe you will mind your own business. ;-)
I'd rather have no limits to quantity, but have guidelines on quality.
No Family Reunification Act...
Once one is in legally, at least the immediate family should be brought in.
and no citizenship for babies born on American soil.
From a practical matter, it would take a constitutional amendment to do it. I think it would be a big mistake, in that we'd end up with a glut of people as citizens of no nation, just waiting to be snapped up by the first opportunity.
In addition, I would like to see our borders CLOSED to ALL illegals. All immigrants coming on boats would be detained somewhere but not on OUR soil....and I would like our country to adopt some of the Canadian stringencies to immigration such as the requirement that the immigrant be able to CONTRIBUTE to country...
Fair enough.
Finally, without a doubt, the immigrant should speak FLUENT ENGLISH, and should have a college degree.
I think English should be a prerequisite for citizenship and I'd make welfare only available for citizens. However, I'd allow anyone in, as long as they did not have a serious contagious disease (AIDS or TB, for example; having a case of sniffles would not be a bar to entry) and did not have a criminal record for things that would be crimes in the U.S. (For example, a Chinese family who had been convicted of violating China's population control policies would not be barred -- having more than 1 child is not a crime in the U.S.)
It's more of a rich vs. poor debate than a racialist debate. A broad historical trend about rich cultures which are located next to poor ones is that the rich cultures always have lower birth rates and higher average ages (this isn't a roman catholic issue - more like the prosperous yuppie "fear of commitment" where people don't get married or have kids; different motivations and ways of avoiding responsibility) and the poor ones move in.
And the US has been a great place to be as a rich country. It might not be so great as a poor one.
They're talking about the very same thing in Europe. Buchanan has just cast the discussion in North American terms.
I tutored in the elementary school in our town and to a person, the Mexican parents wanted their children to be able to speak and read English. I found them very receptive, very religious, and a very proud people that just wanted their children to have a better life! Don't think it is right to trash any one group the way I have seen Mexicans trashed on this forum.
We all had the good fortune to be born in this Country, but I always wondered what it would be like to be born in a Country like Mexico and look across the border and see a better life for my children. I think a lot of us would be doing anything we could to come to America for a better life for our families just like the Mexicans have done!
Fair enough. I will take all of the above over Karl Marx, Michel Foucault, Antonio Gramsci, Georg Friedrich Hegel, Herbert Marcuse (European immigrant to the States no less), Jacques Derrida, Jean Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger, etc.
I see that we both tend to lean toward AMERICAN political philosophers. That is a good thing. I too am a America Firster, albeit NOT IN THE BUCHANANITE SENSE OF "BLOOD AND SOIL."
I don't see Buchanan's latest book as racist babbling...maybe there's a tremendous amount of truth to what Buchanan has to say; but no one wants to listen. He's merely stating that which is factual...the world's demographics are shifting and there's ample evidence to accurately suggest which direction they're shifting. It's obviously his opinion as to what the demographic landscape will look like in 50 years or so, but I'd hardly call that racist babbling. Why is it racist?
Demographics are not racist. They are numbers. I grant you that Pat Buchanan (and I) are definitely at least somewhat 'ethnocentric,' in that we seem to agree that Western Christian European Civilization is preferable to other cultures. Furthermore, we strive to promote and protect it, because it seems preferable to us.
The only proof I can offer is that WCC is the only world culture that actively tolerates concepts from others. Diversity, for example, is prized nowhere else.
Buchanan also understands the difference and relationship between "Demographics,' and 'Psychographics,' that is, the very mind-set that makes Westerners Westerners, is being overwhelmed by numbers. Previous waves of immigration were based on a concept of gradual assimilation of various European stocks. Since 1965, we have opened the borders to other peoples who outnumber Europeans by factors of a 100. It took 3 Million Irishmen 100 years to get here. Unrestrained, the Mexicans, Indians, Chinese, Indonesians, Phillipinos could each send 3 Million a month with no trouble at all. This many people can never be assimilated and turned to the ways of Western tolerance and democracy.
You have no idea of Third World birth rates. For example, I worked in East Africa when Kenya was a paradise with 4 Million people. Now, 25 years later, it's a hellhole with 35 Million. In the meantime, European birthrates have fallen below '0' in many countries.(Ireland, God Bless Her, being a welcome exception.)
In other words, Sister, your feminist progeny is going to have a lot more to resist in the next 100 years. Buchanan's book, which you really ought to read, was foreshadowed by Spengler's "Decline of the West." What really bothers me, and apparently Buchanan, however, is best expressed in Skinner's "Beyond Freedom and Dignity."
Resisting old European-biased white men might be a hell of a lot of good fun for parlor feminists, but at least stop and consider your targets, not to mention the fate of women in the world to come. As bad as we euro-chauvinists are, women fare far worse in the other cultures that are poised to overwhelm and replace us.
So does that mean that I am supposed to do the same? Where are you coming from?
I lived in Los Angeles for 12 years. Don't tell anybody but I saw guys with guys and girls with girls. Ahhhhhhh!!
I was stationed at MacDill AFB in Tampa for 2 years and then worked for Honeywell Military Products Group in St. Petersburg for about 5 years. I saw all kind of things in Ybor City. But, I did not feel obligated to do as they did.
I guess I am just old fashioned. I make my own decisions and walk my own walk. I don't fashion my life or my standards by what I see.
Yep. If his surname was Lipshitz, I can guarantee that there wouldn't be "A day in the life of Lipschitz" thread. How I tire of the GOP annointed.
So, you are saying that Europeans are:
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.