Posted on 08/15/2002 8:59:01 AM PDT by Korth
Will Americans ever escape the gag of political correctness? Probably not, but the English are making a last ditch effort. On Aug. 7, the London Times published an article by one of its editors titled, "Britain is Losing Britain"
Third World immigration, hitherto an unmentionable subject, is quadrupling the rate of Britain's population growth and creating a new city of immigrants the size of Cambridge every six months.
Immigration, the Times says, is transforming Britain into "a foreign land." British society is being utterly transformed "against the wishes of the majority of the population, damaging quality of life and social cohesion, exacerbating the housing crisis and congestion," and burdening the health service to the breaking point.
Finding the situation "so extreme and so damaging," the Times editor writes that "silence is no longer an option." Britain is literally disappearing. In many British cities, "you can wander around for hours without seeing a white face, one monoculture having replaced another." Yet, "immigration celebrationists" continue "to brainwash the British public into thinking that it is all for their own good. But almost every reason given to support this immigration is bogus."
"In the past five years," the Times says, "while the white population grew by 1 percent, the Bangladeshi community grew by 30 percent, the black African population by 37 percent and the Pakistani community by 13 percent. ... Whole villages in Bangladesh have been transplanted to northern English towns."
The British political order has broken down. Polls show that without question, "the large majority of British people -- including around half of ethnic minorities -- think there is too much immigration." But public opinion is powerless: "No mainstream political party dare reflect public opinion." British politicians cower before the immigration lobby and fear being called racist, Nazi or xenophobic.
Name-calling aside, the Times says that massive immigration without assimilation leads to social fragmentation. More non-Britons wish to live in Britain than are consistent with the existence of Britain. "The people of Britain have a right to decide who can move here."
The Times assertion that the people of Britain -- and not the immigration lobby -- have the right to decide immigration policy is heresy to multiculturalists. But the very next day (before anyone could burn the heretic), the Daily Mail, Britain's largest circulation newspaper, reprinted the Times article. Thus, debate has begun before hysterical "immigration celebrationists" can shout it down.
Sir Andrew Green, a career British diplomat, together with Oxford University demographer David Coleman, has formed a new organization, Migration Watch UK. These developments are shifting the burden of argument. Now immigration enthusiasts are on the hot seat. They must explain why they aren't racists for wishing to destroy Britain with massive Third World immigration.
Americans are losing their country, too, but Americans are not allowed to say so. Third World immigration to the United States is higher than to Britain. One in five of the U.S. population was born abroad or born of parents who were born abroad. This is a massive change from 1970, when new immigrants counted for only one in 20 U.S. births.
While the British worry about losing cities to Third World immigrants, the United States is losing entire states. Assimilation has broken down. In its place, Americans now endure Third World enclaves or colonies.
As the United States becomes a polyglot, how can it have any foreign policy? How much longer will the United States be able to conduct a pro-Israeli foreign policy and plan invasions of Middle Eastern countries?
The outlines of U.S. domestic policy in the New Immigrationist State (NIS) are already apparent. The tax burdens on native-born whites will rise to meet the needs of the poor immigrants. The burden of the federal personal income tax rests on a narrow base of 35 million taxpayers who are, in effect, slaves of the state. The colonization of these taxpayers will intensify, as millions of needy new immigrants enter the United States each year.
The United States, like Britain, faces extinction as a nation-state. Both countries are becoming colonies for a plethora of Third World cultures.
As one Briton put it, "We resisted Hitler in order to become a colony for Africa, Asia and the Middle East." The United States has done the British one better. We have become the world's colony.
Not so. They had a lot of options. The British and the French both considered the 'Indians' to be masters of their own lands and dealt with them as such. They were very skillful at playing one side against the other.
We have NOT been privy to much of the history of the beginning of our country in regards to Indians and the concepts of self government they had and were incorporated into our own nations documents.
So have I. I'm tired of being nice and begging MY REPRESENTATIVES to act. It's time to send DC an ultimatum; Secure our borders, or we will.
What do you think of having people call their senators, on a specific day and hour, all with the same message; "Senator we're not asking, we're telling you, secure our borders, or we will."? I'm sure conservitave groups (C.C.C.) and groups fighting illegals (American Patrol) would be willing to do what they can. If all the small groups and indivudals, who whine and complain, would get together, we could put the fear of G-d into our "leaders". Most people can't afford to fly to Washington to protest, but can afford a few long distance phone calls.
My husband keeps telling me nothing can be done. I want to prove him wrong. I want to show the world that Americans still have a spine.
Stultis: Nope. Sorry, but jpsb is right (in this limited respect) about us neo-cons, and your claim is nonsense.
A person is a good or a service? I suppose in a slaveowning society he can be, but slavery was abolished in this country. Labor is a good, but a person is much more than just his labor. If you import labor, you also import a person who will likely have children that he wants to send to our schools. He will need housing, which increases crowding. He most likely will be inclined to vote for Democrats given that he is poor and a member of a racial minority group. etc. etc. etc.
If you have free flow of goods and services, importing labor for the most part is unnecessary. How? By having the work done in Mexico or wherever, and then importing in product. Granted this is not possible for some types of labor, such as childcare, dishwashing, farm work, etc but it is possible for the vast majority of work that is done by immigrants.
Of course there is a labor market, just as there are markets for goods and services.
Where did I say otherwise? (WDISO for short)
Equally clearly, the movement of laborers (or their entries into or out of different occupations) certainly does effect the labor market.
WDISO? tightening up our border with Mexico has actually made the immigration problem worse. Your average Mexican peasant understands the labor market much better than you appear to. He comes to the America (yes, often crossing the border illegally) when there are jobs to be had. When jobs are not available he heads back to Mexico where he can live cheaply, or use the money he earned in America to buy building materials for the home he is building for his retirement.
Nonsense. Even Mexicans with greencards who are free to travel back and forth don't do it. They stay. Why? Because they can always live better here. The job market is always better here.
Study after study has shown that the population of Mexican illegals in America at any one time tracks the job market almost exactly.
Sure. The more desperate they are the more likely they are to make the risky journey North. Big surprise.
That is, it did until we began to tighten up the border. Now illegals know that if they leave America it may be nearly impossible, or at least very expensive or dangerous, to return. Now, instead of traveling back and forth, tracking the labor market, they stay regardless, and, when the labor market is down, consume food stamps rather than contribute withholding taxes.
They never traveled back and forth. Even when the job market is bad here, it is almost always better than back in Mexico. Again, most Mexian aliens living in the US are LEGAL. They have greencards. They can freely travel back and forth. They don't do it (except perhaps to visit relatives or for vacation). Why?
What we "neo-cons" believe, or at least what this neo-con believes, is that a sensible immigration policy is one that will allow as many who are willing to work, and able to find and keep work, to come to the country and remain in the country.
Typical neo-con thinking, or should I say lack of thinking. All you care about are jobs and money, never stopping to consider all the undesirable social effects of a large population of foriegners, resentful of the US and beneficiars of racial quotas at the expense of natives, who refuse to assimlate. It is not surpriseing neocons fail to consider these things since they all live in nice secluded lilly-white gated communities that are insulated from them.
IOW, fill the available job market with legal immigrants.
Why not Americans? And don't give me that nonsense that they do jobs Americans won't do. Americans did all those jobs before we had mass immigration. They don't anymore because mass immigration drove down their wages.
At the same time paths to citizenship which are transparent and available to all with a clean record as visa holders, but which require a thorough education in American governance and values, should be made available.
I have a nice bridge to sell you. A thorough education in American governance and values! LOL! What fantasy world are you living in?
Immigrants have a higher welfare participation rate than do natives. They are young, but on average they make little money, and hence aren't much help for "saving" social security.
Take Pakistanis, for example. First and second generation immigrants from this poor, third world country actually earn more than the average American (same is true of Indians, who have very similar demographics as far as immigrants). Why? Because they are the most highly educated immigrant group America has ever had.
Pakistanis are not representative of the immigrant population as a whole. Most immigrants today don't even have the equivalent of a high school dimploma.
Not that facts matter to the hysterical anti-immigrant paleo-conservatives, or their friends in the big labor left.
Actually, its usually the neocons who ignore the facts. Most, I find, live in a fantasy world.
You might want to drop by for a look-see some time.
Yes, my ancestors came from somewhere other than North America. As did yours and everyone else's including those of the Native Americans.
This doesn't mean we have to allow it happen again or allow our country to be turned into "Little (insert country-names)"
I think we can do without all of them, just as we can do without the politicians who want them here.
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.