Immigration and Usurpation

| | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

Read this essay, then consider the current immigration debate - then say to yourself, "holy crap" as I did:

While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and "dependable" in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American.

Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). This seemed paradoxical, and explaining their motivations was more challenging. However, while acknowledging that they may not now receive their votes, they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and "teaching," they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them.

Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with "converted" Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized "new" United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would "go away" after tinkering with the People, who have given lawmakers their privileges but who, like a Sword of Damocles, can also "unfairly" take them away. Hispanics would acquiesce and assist in the "natural progress" of these legislators to remain in power and increase the scope of that power. In this sense, Republicans and Democrats were similar.

While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a "high five" when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them "rednecks," and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself. Jefferson and Madison would have perhaps understood why this is so - enthusiasm for mass immigration seems to be correlated with examples of undermining the "just and constitutional laws" they devised.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Immigration and Usurpation.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


zimzo said:

Just how paranoid are you? Do you honestly believe that Mexicans are secretly conspiring to take over our country? And to do what exactly? Force us to buy Juan Gabriel records?

I knew that empathy for the working class was not the real reason you are so obsessed with immigrants. Now we're getting closer to the real reason.

Zimzo, sorry, I admit the point of this post depended on readers actually reading the essay I linked to. That was a link too far for you.

Next time I will spoon feed the information.


For all of our readers who actually have some intellectual curiosity and honesty, please read that essay.

And we should all be aware that Zimzo and his ilk are all about criticizing America because they hate America.

But we are glad to host all sorts of guests here, including the Zimzos and all the other America-haters.

If I am not mistaken, Zimzo is seeking to move to Iceland. We wish him well.

zimzo said:

Saying that because I disagree with you means that I hate America is pretty pathetic, Joe. I used to have so much respect for you and your intellect. What happened to you?

Shame on me if I ever had your respect, Zimzo. All I will ever accept is contempt from the likes of you. We live in diametrically opposed realities.

zimzo said:

I don't have contempt for you, Joe. If you have contempt for me, that says more about you than it does about me.

We live in the same reality, whether you like it or not. If there really is more than one reality (you mean like parallel universes?), then I'm afraid your universe must be a very lonely one because there are very few people who agree with most of what you say.

I think it's very sad that you dedicate so much of your energy now to attacking those who are less fortunate than you are and spinning paranoid fantasies about how they are out to get you.

I don't have contempt for you at all. I just feel a little sorry for you.

Jack said:

Keep tryin', Joe!

I think you are one of my paranoid fantasies, Zimzo. That would actually explain a lot.

Jack said:

"He only comes out when I drink my gin" -- The Who

Kevin said:

"Most of them seemed to be aware of the negative or at least doubtful consequences of mass immigration from Latin America, while still advocating mass immigration.3"

"3. Maybe this is where immigration policy differs from trade policy. At least the elites that promote free trade with other countries do genuinely believe it benefits the U.S. economy and the average person, and the evidence proves them right."

ROTMFFL! as the kids say. I like how they make footnotes in the text of the article as if they are citing a credible source and then the footnote is more argument written by them. Number three is most obvious.

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here