Sowing The Seeds of Separatism and Strife

| | Comments (102) | TrackBacks (0)

There is an enlightening column by film director Ron Maxwell (Gettysburg, Gods and Generals), at the Loudoun Times:


This isn't the old familiar immigration we grew up with, the relatively small populations from Eastern Europe, from the Mediterranean, from Japan, from Ireland -- those ancestors of ours who couldn't wait to learn English, who within a generation became more American than Americans, who grabbed hold of the Stars and Stripes and never let go. Sure, our ancestors taught us second languages and, indeed, we celebrate our heritage in the privacy of our homes and among our ethnic and cultural and religious sub-groups. It’s great that we do, but we don't march in angry protest with Irish, Italian or Israeli flags.

What we are witnessing today, what our elites are allowing to happen, indeed abetting, is a burgeoning separatist movement, largely though not exclusively confined to the Southwest.


Ron Maxwell brings a historical perspective to the current illegal alien issue which deserves a careful reading - read it here.

The column takes La Voz of Loudoun to task for a blog post by the La Voz Director about the Loudoun supervisors' resolution on immigration enforcement, which is a bit inflammatory:


Adolph Hitler was quoted as saying "I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few." That seems to be the strategy adopted by some so called anti-illegal immigrant activists around the country...

Many of the folks who support this action, and some of those that are members of groups such as Help Save Loudoun, will emphatically state that they are not anti-immigrant...


"State they are not anti-immigrant" is, you should know, not generally meant as a positive formulation. But we deal with it.

In the same issue of the paper, Sterling Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio questions whether La Voz should be receiving taxpayer funds. On a personal note, I'm fine with La Voz, to the extent my Hitleresque tendencies don't poison the relationship.

UPDATE: La Voz' Director tells her story at Too Conservative.

UDATE II: Read The Second Mexican War by Lawrence Auster. An excerpt:


Consider Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castañeda’s non-negotiable demands—“It’s the whole enchilada or nothing”—that he issued in a speech in Phoenix, Arizona in 2001. America, said Castañeda (as recounted by Allan Wall), “had to legalize all Mexican illegal aliens, loosen its already lax border enforcement, establish a guest worker program (during an economic downturn) and exempt Mexican immigrants from U.S. visa quotas!” He also demanded that Mexicans living in the U.S. receive health care and in-state college tuition. As Castañeda summed it up in Tijuana a few days later, “We must obtain the greatest number of rights for the greatest number of Mexicans [i.e. in the U.S.] in the shortest time possible.” What this adds up to, comments Wall, is basically “the complete surrender of U.S. sovereignty over immigration policy.” And why not? As Castañeda had written in The Atlantic in 1995: “Some Americans ... dislike immigration, but there is very little they can do about it.”

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Sowing The Seeds of Separatism and Strife.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1333

102 Comments

Sanity said:

Maxwell's rewriting history. I know whole communities populated with Italian immigrants that NEVER learned English well. Their kids did, but spoke Italian at home. These are the same folks now crapping on the Hispanics.

How many folks in NYC aren't 2nd (or 3rd) generation Europeans? Relatively small amounts? Who's he kidding? 500M population by mid-century? His numbers simply don't add up.

He might be a good director, but he's an idiot. Same-old same-old, "But they're not like me." Get over it. The more you guys crab, the more irrelevant you're going to become.

prince said:

Yes, truly enlightening. I posted this somewhere else but in an effort to get my movie collaboration with Mr. Maxwell started I am going to post here:

It may not be relevant to his brilliant essay but it is worth mentioning that the majority of Hispanic immigrants in Loudoun are from El Salvador. The next largest group is from Peru. I don't know if any of you ever called a Salvadoran a Mexican or a Mexican a Peruvian but I tell ya what, they don't appreciate the confusion. I am trying to envision the Peruvians, Mexicans, Salvadorans, Colombians, Guatemalans, etc, etc, joining ranks to "reconquistar" Loudoun County. This is what you might hear on the battle lines (I'll translate):
"Don't call me buey, you cactus head." say's Jose the Peruvian.
"Shut up you eater of cats" responds Juan the Mexican.
"Hey, don't they have any pupusas around here?" says Pepe the Salvadoran.
"What a moron" answers Jose.
"Yeah, Salvadorans are so dumb" agrees Jose.
Just then Colonel Paco the Colombian, who brings years of experience with weaponry with him from his years with the cartel yells out "OK boys, we are storming the jail! We are going to free our illegal alien brothers that Sheriff Ahlemann captured but ICE never picked up. Then we march to Sterling Park where we will find plenty of rooms to rent and women to whistle at!”
The troops all holler and lift their arms to the air then pile up in their stolen cars with the plates removed and head off to battle.

Mr. Maxwell, if you are interested in collaborating on a new picture just let me know. You can send me a comment.

prince said:

I am envisioning the next frame as Delgaudio in underwear and a red cape (yes, that image hurts though some of you may find it exciting)) next to Jo (holding a keyboard he is not afraid to use as a weapon) and Mr. Maxwell holding a cival war rifle used in one of his films. They are standing just off rt. 7 at the begining of Sterling Blvd. They are ready to defend Sterling Park. As the unliscensed cars full of illegal comes into view Mr. Maxwell yell "OK men, we do this for our Grandchildren. Indead for our nation!!!"

zimzo said:

A truly insightful article from the man who brought cast George Allen as himself, or as a Confederate general (I forget which), in his movie Gods and Generals.

Some highlights:
"It is practically dogma now to believe that had the Founders dealt with the slavery issue at the time of independence, the Civil War may never have happened." So the founders should have abolished slavery outright or made it a permanent institution? I wonder which solution he thinks would have worked better.

"The U.S. has the world's most liberal immigration policies." Really? More liberal than the U.K., the European Union or Canada? By what criterion?

"Why on earth would we want to create the conditions in the American Southwest or for that matter all across America, for future civil strife, or in a worst case scenario, civil war?" Civil war!!!??? I guess he's so desperate to get financing for the third part of his Civil War trilogy after the last part was such a bomb that he has decided to turn it into a science fiction movie.

"This isn't the old familiar immigration we grew up with, the relatively small populations from Eastern Europe, from the Mediterranean, from Japan, from Ireland -- those ancestors of ours who couldn't wait to learn English" I'm afraid the Irish are still trying to learn English today, but at least they're trying.

"What we are witnessing today, what our elites are allowing to happen, indeed abetting, is a burgeoning separatist movement, largely though not exclusively confined to the Southwest." Oh so that's what they're saying to each other in Spanish. They are plotting to take over Virginia and then secede from the union.

"If you study the fertility rates among this population, it's simple to project the future demographics." These foreigners are breeding like rabbits. How can we keep up? Perhaps by establishing a program like this:
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1569029,00.html

"The Southwest will become, by mid-century, the northern province of Mexico, de facto if not de jure." Viva Zapata!

"These are the questions we must consider soberly, unemotionally and rationally." Of course, sowing fear of an "invasion" from Mexico is a great example of rational and unemotional thinking.

"It is our responsibility to seriously think this through, to question our assumptions and some of our cherished notions – to do better than even the Founders did in 1781." Which apparently wasn't too good considering how they didn't solve that slavery thing.

Next week: How gays are secretly taking over the Republican party and planning to round up heterosexuals and force them into breeding camps to produce babies for gay adoptions.

Sanity said:

He seems to forget that the founding fathers DID solve the "slavery thing", but that the southern states wouldn't buy in unless there was a compromise, so they had to change it.

Nice try. Precious little information here guys: it would be nice to see some documentation or even a passing attempt at some relevant factual information.

But I guess dealing with his statements directly is not the point, is it?

Jack said:

Could you elaborate a bit, Sanity?

zimzo said:

You're right, Joe. It would have been nice to see documentation and relevant factual information in Maxwell's article. Instead he has written a piece full of unsupported assertions ("The U.S. has the world's most liberal immigration policies."), historical revisionism ("had the Founders dealt with the slavery issue at the time of independence, the Civil War may never have happened"; "those ancestors of ours who couldn't wait to learn English"), crackpot conspiracy theories ("a burgeoning separatist movement") and bizarre fear-mongering ("the fertility rates among this population"; "The Southwest will become, by mid-century, the northern province of Mexico"). Sadly, this is what passes for "unemotional and rational" discourse by those on your side of the immigration issue.

prince said:

in 1850 the percentage of foreign born to the total population was almost 10%, some studies say the percentage was even higher, up to 15%. of the 2,244,602 immigrants, 2,021,867 were from Europe, or 90.52%. in 2000 the percentage of foreign born of the total population was just over 11%. Of the 31,107,889 immigrants, 16,916,416 were from Latin America, or 54.38%.
also, what about Angle Island. All we ever hear about is Ellis Island and the europeans who immigrated here legally. we don't hear about the asians who came from angel island and in many cases were detained for days and many of whom enterted with false papers. http://www.angelisland.org/immigr02.html

Jack said:

Zimzo -- "The U.S. has the world's most liberal immigration policies" is a difficult assertion to prove, but it should be easy to disprove. All that is required it to find ONE country that has a more liberal immigration policy. Go for it.

Jack said:

Oh, for a suggestion, try the communist countries. They are often like roach motels -- easy to get in, but hard to get out.

Anonymous said:

also, so as not to feel alone in Loudoun and the us, Europe is struggling with many of the same immigration http://www.workpermit.com/news/2007-08-28/uk/liberal-democrats-want-failed-asylum-seeker-amnesty.htm

maybe take back loudoun can set up a pen pal network with like minded europeans.
don't know if Maxwell considered that this is not the first time in world history that there has been mass migration, legal or not, and that the US is not alone in facing this issue...

Sanity said:

One website: http://www.crf-usa.org/lessons/slavery_const.htm

Here's an excerpt: "What should be done about the slave trade, the importing of new slaves into the United States? Ten states had already outlawed it. Many delegates heatedly denounced it. But the three states that allowed it--Georgia and the two Carolinas--threatened to leave the convention if the trade were banned."

Other issue: Do you count slaves as persons or not? If yes, the south is more powerful, but pays higher taxes.

Bottom line is that Maxwell is rewriting history. No way would slaves have been banned and a U.S. government formed at the same time.

Sanity said:

Yeah, do you think the coolies that built the railroads were legal? Without them, we wouldn't have had transcontinental railroads.

Jack said:

InSanity -- The southern colonies wanted slaves counted, the northern ones did not.

Yes, the coolies were legal. We had open immigration then.

Linda B said:

Sanity, re: your comment about the railroads ... is it your belief that it is OK to have people come here illegally and be used for cheap labor in poorly regulated work conditions so long as something beneficial comes of it? Are you one of those folks whose reaction to deportation is, "Then who would mow my lawn and clean my pool"?

How the heck do folks like you come off as the "compassionate" ones when those of us who are opposed to this mass exploitation end up painted as racists?

zimzo said:

Well, Linda if you really are concerned about immigrants being exploited then I'm sure you are in favor of legalizing those who are here so that they can have the protection of our labor laws. Do you support that or are you being disingenuous because that is not really your concern?

Linda B said:

First of all, zim, let me say that your question is disingenuous. Certainly people can be in favor of deporting every single illegal alien and seeing true reform of the U.S. immigration system and still be genuinely concerned about these individuals' rights as human beings.

Second of all, let me say that legalizing those who are here probably is not a realistic solution to the problem I have named, because those people would then become American citizens earning fair wages, with health care, etc., and so they would no longer be cheap labor. Companies would look to either send their jobs overseas or bring in more illegals (who this time wouldn't even TRY to become legalized lest they become undesirable American workers) so they could continue to exploit cheap labor. So we would still need to fix the system and enforce the laws against these companies and the new crowd of people coming here illegally.

All of that said, personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a limited amnesty. I'm not sure how/if it would work, because where do you draw the line? And how do you define/prove certain conditions (e.g., person has been in the country a certain amount of time, has not committed any crimes, has paid taxes, has assimilated into the community, or whatever)? If better minds than mine could come up with a reasonable solution, I would support it.

I would not ever be in favor of wholesale amnesty. We would be granting citizenship to an entire population of people whose first act to try to get into this country was to break the laws of this country, with no requirement that they have become law-abiding, contributing citizens. We would be placing an incredible strain on our health care, schools, SS, etc., which is patently unfair to those who are currently legal citizens, particularly the poorest among us. And we would be delivering a slap in the face to the people who have immigrated here legally. I know lots of folks who went through the process, and if you think that last item is a small matter to them, you'd be wrong.

Linda B said:

And one more thing, zimzo. The main purpose of my original post was to point out the hypocrisy of those who call anti-illegal immigration activists racists while they themselves (not all, but many) are all-too-willing to reap the benefits of a system that takes advantage of a certain people ... I guarantee some of them view those people as "lesser" because they are brown, because they speak a different language, because they come from a third-world country, etc. Where is the outrage against these folks? Hm?

zimzo said:

"Certainly people can be in favor of deporting every single illegal alien and seeing true reform of the U.S. immigration system and still be genuinely concerned about these individuals' rights as human beings."

I'm sorry, Linda, but I fail to see how one can support a massive round-up and forced deportation of 16 million people and all that that would entail and still profess "concern" for the people whose lives you would be disrupting, many of whom have been here for more than a decade. I find it incredible that you would suggest such a thing. Do you also believe that Andrew Jackson had "concern" for the Cherokees that were forceably removed from Georgia, an incident that is known in history as The Trail of Tears, or that the Poles had "concern" for the Jews during the forced deportation of Jews to the Warsaw Ghetto? Is that what you're saying, Linda? I wonder if you have really thought this through.

Sanity said:

Linda, the vast majority of current illegal immigrants are adults so there wouldn't be much of a strain on anything.

The problem with deportation is that most of the children of these immigrants are American citizens. Do you really want to break up families?

There never was a proposal for "amnesty". That's just right-wing gobbledy gook like "death tax". The people here illegally would (depending on the specific proposal) have to pay fines, do community service, leave and re-enter, have children citizens, have stayed here an extended period, or some combination. Amnesty implies no punishment or forgiveness. In all of the proposals, there were just alternative punishments besides deportation.

BTW Jack: Yes, the first transcontinental railroad was built with "legal" immigrants, but the rest were not as Asians were banned from entering the U.S. in 1882.

I AM against exploitation. The problem is that we have two issues:
1. The illegal immigrants currently here and working that may have American citizen dependents.
2. New immigrants not yet here, or not yet integrated.

I would legalize (note that's a whole lot different than citizenship) all of the current immigrants here longer than, say, three years, so that they would be paying taxes and getting worker's insurance benefits (workers comp, unemployment, etc.) and I would liberalize our immigration policies as (a) there's a lot of people that want to come here, and (b) there's obviously a market for their skills.

This would then provide a base where, I believe, everyone could agree that all NEW illegal immigrants, and the businesses that hire them, should be punished severely at all levels.

That's compassionate. As long as the right-wingers keep getting in a snit over the fait accompli that's the current immigrants, we'll continue to crab, moan, and let the problem get worse.

It's kind of funny actually. About the only thing that Bush has proposed (or done) for the good of the country and not for the good of his buddies or his party got him creamed from the right. Shows you how many "compassionate conservatives" we have.

Sanity said:

P.S. Jack,

Yes, the northern states would only count the slaves if they were no longer slaves, but free. Southern states weren't buying it.

Jack said:

Zimzo, did the Cherokees have no legal right to live in Georgia?

"The problem with deportation is that most of the children of these immigrants are American citizens. Do you really want to break up families?" -inSanity

The parents can take the children with them. The children may, of course, return at any time as citizens, but there is no reason they have to stay here.

"Asians were banned from entering the U.S. in 1882"

I believe the Chinese Exclusion Act applied to ethnic Chinese, not to Asians in general.

Tell me, inSanity, how is your solution compassionate to those who have waited years to immigrate legally, only to have these interlopers steal their opportunities?

Linda B said:

Hi, Zim! Yep, I've thought it through and that is what I'm saying. Your non-related examples of human rights abuses notwithstanding.

Sanity, Don't even get me started on the death tax.

Jack said:

P.S. -- I do not recall anyone in the constitutional convention saying "free your slaves, and we'll count them as whole persons." Please direct me to your references. You may also recall that "Indians not taxed" were also counted as three-fifths.

zimzo said:

Well, tell me, Linda, what you think the forced deportation of 16 million human beings and their families would be like since you have thought about it so much?

Jack said:

Hey, inSanity, you homosexual apologists should certainly favor the repeal of the death tax, then there would be no tax issues willing one's estate to his partner.

Linda B said:

Well, in your own words, it would "disrupt lives." Agreed. Being willing to disrupt the lives of those who made the choice to break the law to come into this country does not equate to being unconcerned with their human rights and welfare.

Still waiting to hear where the outrage is re: my original post.

prince said:

linda- point out an example of cheap labor? are you referring to those that are paid under the table? How many? what is the going rate for cheap labor? can you provide an example? Are you referring to illegal immigrants that are on payroll using false documents, as are the overwelming majority? If so, is cheap labor the minimum wage? do you think that all those that benifit from the cheap labor pocket the profits, or do you think that it contributes to lower costs passed on to the consumer? No sarcasam, genuine questions.

also, are you SURE you checked your stats and really though it through before you made this comment:
"We would be placing an incredible strain on our health care, schools, SS, etc., which is patently unfair to those who are currently legal citizens, particularly the poorest among us. And we would be delivering a slap in the face to the people who have immigrated here legally"

zimzo said:

As soon as you present some examples, Linda, of people who call anti-immigrant activists racists but are racists themselves, I promise to be outraged. I'm not sure how that gets anti-immigrant activists off the hook, however.

"Disrupted" was an intentional understatement Linda. Do you honestly think the forced deportation of 16 million people would only affect those who broke the law? What about their children? What about their partners (I know several Americans who would lose their partners, for example. Why should they be punished? To what end?)? What about all the other people in the community they have ties with? And do you honestly think that losing one's home and being separated from one's loved ones is proportionate punishment for violating a misdemeanor? If you have ever studied incidents in history of mass deportations (which I assume you have not from your reaction), you would know that the upheaval affects everyone in that society. I'm sure you are not a callous person (like Jack) so I can only imagine you really haven't thought about what would happen.

Jack said:

Zimzo, what about all those poor thieves, burglars, drunk-drivers, and dog-fighters whose lives are disrupted when they are sent to jail? What about the poor children and "partners" who are left behind? At least the children and "partners" of deported unlawful aliens have the option of going with them.

Linda B said:

Zim, Not sure why you're arguing with me on this. I specifically said I would support some limited form of amnesty, for many of the reasons you cite. I was simply contending that supporting 100% deportation and caring about human rights and welfare are not mutually exclusive, for those who do advocate for that. If you disagree with my opinion, fine. That would hardly be a first.

Re: examples ... um, anyone who thinks it's fine to exploit brown-skinned people for cheap labor.

Prince, not sure what you're getting at? Are you saying these folks aren't being used for cheap labor? Re: who profits, it is both ... companies and consumers. Not sure what you're getting at there either, please explain. Re: the strain on our system, are you saying legalizing 20 million people would not have a serious effect on our services? You can find the stats on this very site re: the increasing costs in LoCo alone for ESL classes, some of which are certainly being used for children of illegals. That is just one very small piece of the pie. The report on the price VA pays for imprisoning illegals who have been incarcerated that just came out this week is another example. Not sure what you're asking here, either. (BTW, though I hate to encourage you, your earlier posts on the movie scenes were very funny.)

Dan said:

"point out an example of cheap labor? are you referring to those that are paid under the table"

Take a drive over to Herndon worker's site and find out.. Or go over to the Centerville Library, seek the truth and you will surely find it..

Deporting 16-20 million is not realistic, and likely not necessary. Take away the public benefits, ensure that employers hire lawful residents will go along way toward the solving this problem. Take away the reasons they came here, and many will go home voluntarily. This is already happening in some parts of the country, recently publicized in AZ and OK.

Earlier prince posted something about Peruvians, Mexicans, Colombians etc. . Illegal alien status is not reserved for those from any one particular country, or any one race. There is a reason that Themis now wears a blindfold.

Sanity mentioned legalizing the illegals after three years so they could get workmen's' comp ? I believe that is already available in VA. and several others states.. I can't help but chuckle at Sanity's remarks that *new* illegals should be punished severely at all levels, but amnesty for those already here. If you have been a lawbreaker for 10 years, we will reward you with amnesty, but for 10 days, slap him in irons !! As you are discriminating based upon a timeline, does this make you a "timelinist" ?

I see no compassion in taking jobs and benefits away from needy Americans and giving them to illegal aliens. Some 8% of America's children live in extreme poverty, let's advocate for them. Unemployment is at or near 30% for America's unskilled workers, let's hire them. It is very easy to sit there advocating compassion, misdirected compassion is no compassion in the eyes of those you ignore in favor of illegal aliens.

Addressing the comment about Gods and Generals, it did not do well in the box office. One of the reasons was that it was historically accurate, and many could not handle the fact that prior to Gettysburg and Vicksburg, the war was going the way of the South. Many blogs and forums that I read even referred to the movie as racist because in the movie the South was shown as being the victor at First Manassas, Fredericksburg, and The Wilderness. Amazing how carelessly and often the racist label is thrown around isn't it ? Seems like racist is becoming the "your mother wears Army boots" of the new millennium.. Btw, George Allen portrayed a Confederate officer, captain I think, it was Robert Byrd who was the Confederate general..

Linda B - I enjoyed your commentaries..

AFF said:

Dan- get with the program

There is no poverty in America cause everybody lives in houses and has microwaves and TVs

Sanity said:

I hear a lot of bitchin' and moanin', but not any real solution to any problem. None of the solutions you offer have any chance of being successful in real life, only on blogs.

At least I'm trying to be reasonable given all of the data.

It's so easy to say "well, they broke the law" while the constitution and federal laws are being ridden over by our current administration.

Do I hear calls for impeachment from this, the "rule of law" blog? (Then again, don't, unless you're going to to impeach the VP as well...On third thought, Nancy Pelosi as president scares me too. Ok, ok, leave him alone until a year from January. )

Sanity said:

I hear a lot of bitchin' and moanin', but not any real solution to any problem. None of the solutions you offer have any chance of being successful in real life, only on blogs.

At least I'm trying to be reasonable given all of the data.

It's so easy to say "well, they broke the law" while the constitution and federal laws are being ridden over by our current administration.

Do I hear calls for impeachment from this, the "rule of law" blog? (Then again, don't, unless you're going to to impeach the VP as well...On third thought, Nancy Pelosi as president scares me too. Ok, ok, leave him alone until a year from January. )

zimzo said:

Linda, I don't think you're an unreasonable person and I don't think we are that far apart. I think you have a tendency to exaggerate negative perceptions and believe the worst about people on the left and make apologies for people on the right and gloss over some of their most extreme rhetoric. Then you stake out what you see as a middle ground between two extremes. I don't think that there are as many obnoxious gay activists or as many racist opponents of anti-immigration activists as you seem to think. And I think you underestimate the animosity of anti-gay marriage activists toward gays and of anti-immigration activists toward immigrants. I think at the heart of most gay marriage opponents' opposition to gay marriage is the idea that gay relationships are inherently less worthy than straight ones and that someone who believes 16 million people should be forceably deported cannot possibly have a great deal of concern for their well-being. I think if you stepped outside of your initial tendency to believe the worst about the left and to defend those on the right you might see that I have a valid point.

Dan said:

The current, unfiltered data tells us there is only one reasonable solution. We must deprive the illegal intruders in our midst of motivation and desire to remain here. Real solutions are working in real places. States are beginning to see net losses in the numbers of illegal alien intruders.

The compassionate solution - take the jobs and benefits from illegal aliens and give the jobs to lawful residents that want to work, the benefits to those that can't work. Feed and immunize our children before those of the world.

Impeachment, for what ? perjury ?

prince said:

Dan - I come in peace but...your ideas are lacking depth, so far. If you can flesh it out a little I am going to use my connections to secure you a seat on the White House Task Force on Solving All Our Problems. What? you didn't get that press release? I swear it exits. anyway...
first of all, if there are millions of undocumented workers in the US and any substantial percentage of them were working under the table, would you not expect to see hundreds of day laborers on any given day in Herndon? The reality is that the majority are working with false documents. I was not saying that cheap labor is not an issue, I am just asking for some data to support that. A strong economic analysis perhaps.

Secondly, if we have millions of employed illegal immigrants in the US, no matter what is done to get them to return home, either by deportation (not gonna happen) or pinching the employers, there is going to be a significant impact on our economy - for better or for worse, and the cost to the consumer is going to go up.

Also, as for the unemployment at 30% for unskilled workers. Do you think that if a million jobs just opened up that those 30% would rush in to fill them? what is the total number of unskilled US workers? I want to know how many people make up that 30%. I want to know why they are unemployed? why are they unskilled?

there are a lot of other issues at work here. they include our welfare system, social changes over the past few decades, etc.

also, relating to the employers. verification IS a problem. it is not a matter of just insisting that they not hire illegals, they need to be given the tools to verify employment eligibility. a buddy of mine fired a guy because he received a social security no match letter on him and subsequently discovered that the ss# was in fact false. guess where that person found his next job, using the same documents? as an employee of Loudoun County. ha. ha. ha.

Jack said:

"[There] are millions of undocumented workers in the US...."

First, let us use the legal terms, shall we? The term used in the U.S. Code is "unlawful alien." They are not "undocumented." That term implies that their actions would be legal save for some minor bureaucratic mix-up. As Dr. McCoy so famously said, "How can you get a permit to do a damned illegal thing?"

The reason the left want the unlawful aliens legalized is because they can be expected to vote for Democrats. They do not care about the lower class in our country, because they already are reliable Democrat voters, and their votes are taken for granted.

Linda B said:

Zimzo, I spent a number of years on the left and some of my best friends are still over there. I don't think the worst of them, but I know how they think (or at least how I and many of my associates used to think) re: conservatives. Many libs absolutely and unfairly paint those on the right with a broad brush as heartless, selfish, unenlightened, etc.

Having become more conservative, and living with someone who is very conservative, I realize that perception is untrue. I could give you lots of examples of how untrue those things are in our household, but Joe has by and large declined to discuss personal matters on this blog and so I will as well.

What you perceive as "glossing over" is my refusal to feed into the misconceptions I think you and others have. Does that mean I think all conservatives are pure of heart? Of course not. But it is my belief that the "haters" are very much in the minority.

I do not think most libs are obnoxious or bad people, either, not by a long shot. If my posts have come off sounding that way, I am sorry because that is not how I feel. I do see a lot of hypocrisy among some on the left and that really, really, really annoys me so maybe my posts have reflected that.

Re: staking out middle ground, you are right. I am a moderate conservative and I have relatively moderate views.

Re: making "apologies," you are wrong. I make neither apologies nor excuses. If anyone says something they shouldn't, they should be called out for it. But just because someone says something conservative, something you or maybe I may disagree with, does not make them hateful, as you seem to want to believe.

Finally, all that said, and to return to the point of this blog post, I don't think the immigration issue comes down to left or right anyway. Some of my liberal friends feel as strongly as I do about this issue, about enforcing the laws.

Dan said:

prince,

My ideas were not meant to provide any depth, primarily because most of the questions they are in reply to had none. It is generally accepted that when one desires an answer with depth, this is indicated by asking a question with depth.

I will attempt to respond to some of your major questions, but not all, as you have the same ability as I to find the answers.

Regarding your statement about prices going up, if this were true, then it would also be true that we would have seen a corollary between the national Consumer Price Index and the influx of illegal aliens over the last 20 years. No such corollary exists. AZ and OK are reporting increases of illegal aliens leaving. They have announced no rising consumer prices that I am aware of. Another fact, while this area was experiencing a rapid increase in the influx of illegal aliens, Loudoun and Fairfax rose to numbers one and two on the nationwide list of average home prices. So much for illegals driving prices down. But our property taxes sure went up over this same period to pay for benefits and infrastructure. I also believe that there is another dynamic here, what I will call the Home Depot Effect. You come not into an area with below market prices, which forces your competition to close up shop, possibly reestablishing elsewhere. What do you do now ? Do you continue selling your product at below market pricing now that you have a monopoly ? I believe the same thing is happening with illegal alien labor. Saturate the market at $5 an hour, and once your competition is gone, time to re-negotiate. Could this possibly explain why the AFL-CIO now has such a big interest in signing up illegal aliens ?

As far as what will happen if a million job vacuum opened up, I can't answer this. I am not sure if it can be either. It is public record that when the Swift Packing plant was raided, Swift's personal office had 200+ applicants the next day, all willing to prove citizenship or lawful residency.

Wrt employer verification, tools exist such as as E-Verify. What follows from the DHS web site :

E-Verify (formerly known as the Basic Pilot/Employment Eligibility Verification Program) is an Internet-based system operated by the Department of Homeland Security in partnership with the Social Security Administration that allows participating employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their newly hired employees.

Social Security also performs verification of the SS number, and contacts the employer if there is a no-match. there was much recent press coverage on this, surprised you missed it.

These are two tools to catch those without documents, and those with false documents. The fact remains, they are unlawful aliens, false papers or no papers. Also, the employer may ask for a drivers license, or a VA state photo id, both which now require legal residency. If I were an employer here I would demand a DMV issued id as a condition of employment.

Regarding the government hiring of illegals, yes, I believe they are some of the biggest culprits. Guess we have to pay for the "good will trips" by Congress somehow now don't we ? When I read that displaced Katrina victims that had been working as part of the clean up efforts lost their jobs when buses full of Central Americans showed up, this disgusted me. Our governments at all levels should ensure that subcontractors perform employee screenings. I have asked VDOT this very question twice. I have yet to receive the courtesy of a reply.

Prince, now it is my turn to ask you a deep question. I am thinking by your posts here, and those over at LTM, (I assume the same prince), that you are much younger than I, maybe twenty something... I am a baby boomer, and in another 10 years, there will be 75 million of us. You and your peers will be providing state and federal entitlements to us such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and whatever else this very large voting body comes up with. My question - do you also wish to be providing benefits and social services for 50-75 million illegal aliens, as well as their offspring ?

My fight against illegal aliens is not primarily for me, it is for my children, and their generation. I want my kids to be able to enjoy the prime of their life, unencumbered by the immense social pressures caused by an immense illegal alien population.

If you were on a White House Task Force, it would likely be in my best interests to flat out ignore you.. :)

The comments here tweaked me to watch Gods and Generals again today. Good movie, could have been better, sure would like to see the director's cut as the movie suffers from the editing I believe. For those interested in U.S. history, the trilogy, The Killer Angels, Gods and Generals, and The Last Full Measure are great books. Most history books dwell on the historical events, these tell the stories of the players and the impact of these events upon them..

Dan said:

Jack, I believe the GOP also sees this as fertile ground for future voters as well as the Democrats.. Personally I believe the GOP wants this as a means to offset the black vote.. And the Democrats want this as a hedge for the day the black vote finally wises up..

Sanity said:

I still don't see how women can be so conservative. Most I know just aren't filled with the mean-spirited, all-for-me-and-the-hell-with-the-rest-of-you attitude that I see from the hetero, white males.

I get the males. The world was their oyster 100 years ago, then women got the vote, blacks got equal rights, women got equal rights, now the homos want to get married and "them, thar Mexican types" want to live right next to 'em!

The women I don't get. With so many men on the right hoping you would stay in the kitchen and just make babies (not in the kitchen, I hope), I wonder how you got filled with so much anger and hate.

The simple fact is that the vast majority of these illegal, undocumented, foreign workers, aliens, whatever, have done what they've done to get a better life for their family. Yes, they broke the law, but this is a problem to be solved, not a group of people to "wage war" against.

If you stay all "high and mighty" and ship 'em all back to where they came from, have you really analyzed the consequences, or don't you care?

Anonymous said:

Dan the man, first of all, I was just kidding about the White House task force.
I would never really consider asking you to be a part of it. Duh.

Also, I have guessed all sorts of things about you based on your comments both here and at the LTM, but I will keep them to myself. Well, let me just ask one quick one. You blog naked don't you? C'mon, you know I'm right.


Seriously, it is my belief that illegal aliens do not saturate the market at $5 an hour. I think that in Morthern Virginia many are employed at minimum wage or above, fairly competetive wages for the work they preform.

It just seems that if there are millions of illegal aliens who are saturating the market at $5 an hour, and we were to deport them all, and those jobs were to open up to the millions of unskilled American workers, well - just doesn't make sense. If there were millions of unskilled American workers willing to work at $5 an hour, why would they (the employers) not have hired them in the first place? Presumbly, Americans will not work for $5 an hour. Those rates would have to go up and presumably the cost would be passed on to the consumer. oh, let me guess. You think the greedy corporations are pocketing the profits and hiding the money in vaults under their mansions, never to see the light of day again. if that's what you think you sound like a liberal.

Also, I am very familiar with DHS no match letters and the minefield that employeers have to weave through. NO match letters are not a grounds for termination, doing so can make the employer suseptable to discrimination lawsuits, undocumented employee or not. same is true in re. to requiring certain documents as a basis for hiring in order to proove legal sttatus. lawsuit, lawsuit, lawsuit. If you don't like it take to the federal government buddy. God knows Delagudio ain't gonna fix it.
and before you go singing the praises of e-verify, jump to this blog and take a couple of these excellent points into consideration http://www.paemploymentlawblog.com/
yes, the Katrina thing was disgusting, also because many of those central americans never even got paid for the work they preformed.

on to the deep question: illegal aliens pay into to SS, medicare, etc, but are not eligible to the benifits. actually, they are not eligible for almost any benifits. I may be convinced to worry about my grandchildren if you can tell me specifically what bills they will be footing for the illegals. frankly, I am more concerned about terrorism and global warming ( not to say that I am convimced it is not a natural occurance) but the fact of the matter is that our icebergs are'a meltin and weird stuff is goin' down, like huge lakes disapearn', etc.

And as for my age, let me just let it out: I am a twenty one year old white woman with three kids and another bun in the oven. I am on welfare and between that and the checks comin in from my babies' daddies, I'm doin pretty good. I can afford a big tv and a computer. I thought of working at McDonalds but they only pay $5.85 and they would rather hire illegals that can't speak English anyway. I have decided to commit to full time blogging. thinkof all teh fun we can have together Dan!

prince said:

That was me prince, better known as The Artist.

Linda B said:

Sanity, I am not filled with anger or hate. The men I know have never suggested for one second I should stay in the kitchen (my cooking sux) nor make babies. And most of the conservatives I know are not talking about "waging war" at all.

Your post is actually a pretty good example of the tightly held misconceptions I was talking about, so thanks for that.

Also, thanks for reminding me of something ... since I brought up the "100% deportation" thing in the earlier posts and then brought Joe into my most recent post, I did want to say that people should not make the connection that he is a 100% deportation advocate. Based on my understanding of what he is working for, he is not, thoughI won't speak for him beyond that. I was just taking the most extreme case for the purposes of making a point.

Jack said:

inSanity -- your view of conservatives simply does not comport with reality. Conservatives give more money to charity, despite having lower household incomes, on average, than liberals. Religious people also donate far more than secular people. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=1

I have also read that conservatives give more time to charity work, too.

The liberals "compassion" is nothing but talk.

Dan said:

"I still don't see how women can be so conservative. Most I know just aren't filled with the mean-spirited, all-for-me-and-the-hell-with-the-rest-of-you attitude that I see from the hetero, white males."

This is a joke right ? Actually. most of the all-for-me-and-to-hell-with-you folks I have known are liberals.. For a liberal compassion is as Jack states, talk. Compassion is what you talk about doing with someone else's time and money, never your own.


Dan said:

prince, I will try to provide you with a very soft landing from your fantasy, but no, I am fully clothed. If you are looking for naked men, you may wish to try www.loudoundemocrats.org.

Regarding lawsuits, the 4th circuit has ruled that illegal aliens may not pursue Title VII claims.

All of your *beliefs* and *seems* aside, again, no corollary between the CPI and the hiring of illegal aliens has been demonstrated.

As I expected, you play rope-a-dope with my question, illegal aliens paying ss on a grand scale is an urban legend.

prince said:

Dan I'm shocked! I had guessed you were a lady by your comments. Dude, I'm not like that.

Have you ever heard of the SSA's Earnings Suspense File (ESF)? Its estimated to increase by about about $6 billion a year. In 2005 it was at about $519 billion. That's a lot of money. urban legend my arse

Also, I skipped over this last time but I wanted to you to clarify this:
"Another fact, while this area was experiencing a rapid increase in the influx of illegal aliens, Loudoun and Fairfax rose to numbers one and two on the nationwide list of average home prices. So much for illegals driving prices down. But our property taxes sure went up over this same period to pay for benefits and infrastructure."

Really, if you could just tell me whether or not you believe that our property taxes went up to pay for benefits and infrastructure for illegal immigrants, I would be content. I would be over the moon if you could prove it.

As for the lawsuits, of course they can't, but given rate of error on both the no-match and, even worse, e-match, it is a tricky situation for an employer.

Alas, I am done with this scene and on to other stuff. nice to meet you Dan - cabeza de pan.

Linda B said:

Head of bread?

Prince, you are one weird dude. The scene will never be the same again without you.

laughable said:


I love that the Republicans are going down, down down!!!!!!!!!

This country got EXACTLY what it deserved when they voted dumb dumb into office. Now the Dems will come marching in to clean up the mess AGAIN. This time however, the mess is much bigger, i.e. deficit, social security, healthcare, oil, a useless war. The negativity toward the US is more than ever before…by Muslim extremist AND many once “friendly country’s”

As Bush said, “bring it on” what an idiot, what a party…LOL!!!!

I didn’t even bring up the many sex scandals, or the states that are against abortion but have the highest percentage of them, against same sex marriage but have the highest divorce rates, against amnesty for immigrants but have them doing all the work they are to lazy to do …. oh, morals are so sacred in this party, give me a frigin break. Hypocrites! Laughable, simply laughable, and most here will make all kinds of excuses for it, defending their leaders, tearing down the Dems in order to pull themselves up….what I say to that PATHEDIC!!!

HA HA HA, you got what you deserved, lucky for me I don’t have kids that will have to pay for this mess you created, I hope you do, so they can look back and see what inconsiderate parents you really are.

Ta Ta

Sanity said:

This isn't about who gives the most to charity (though I agree there are definitely people that could give more, I'm at about 6% of my gross).

It's about empathizing with folks different than yourselves and protecting them and their rights as much as you do your own.

An extreme example: http://asheville.indymedia.org/article/107Clowns. Obviously, this a group of folks that want more rights for whites and less for blacks. By no means am I even remotely equating any of you with those nut balls, but they're certainly not, shall we say, "left of center".

Much of what is said on this blog is subtle, but points to leveraging the while, male, hetero viewpoint over others, and you sure give the impression that you dislike the attempt by others to gain more rights and that you're angry that they're trying to. I resist that. Examples:

Gun Control: Certainly DC has more murders per capita than NoVA, and yes, guns are illegal there and not here. However, that's not enough data to conclude anything. Yes, the culture is different. So what? What would you do to help change their culture so that they kill each other less? It is a fact that a high percentage of gun crimes in the eastern U.S. use guns from VA dealers. Why? Because we have few laws and less enthusiasm to block the flow of guns. In NoVA, we're generally rich and happy, certainly richer and happier than the average person in D.C., so whether we have guns or not isn't going to change the fact that we have fewer gun crimes. We need to ask "What would the gun deaths be in D.C. if guns weren't illegal?" And "What can we do as citizens of NoVA?" Throwing a few bucks in a Salvation Army can is nice but isn't going to help that.

Gays: Have any of you used a "thought experiment" and pretended you were in a place where Gay love and sex were normal, but you were hetero, and hetero sex was frowned upon? (Assume as part of this that procreation was from gay sex.) What would you do? You might try homosexual encounters because you thought that that was "right". You might get the crap beaten out of you by homos. Being conservative, you might just end up like Craig. Compassion is understanding.

Illegal immigrants: We can use our charts and graphs and statistics to figure out whether "they" help or hurt the economy, and, as I said before, that helps solve the problem of future immigrants, but we still need a reasonable solution to the current problem. Sending, say, 11 year old Americans to a country they've never been to because their parents walked across a border to give them a better life isn't, in any way, a compassionate solution. I don't know exactly what the solution is, but I know it's a complex issue and it will need a complex solution.

Estate tax: The reason for an estate tax is to prevent the creation of dynastic families that could exert too much influence over the government, with no check on their power. We have enough issues with this (Rupert, e.g.) without adding a multi-$1T Gates family, for example. This yields a plutocracy, essentially, an anti-democracy where only the rich, powerful few have power.

All of these examples show you to be angry and hateful of those different and (in most cases) weaker than you.

You probably agree with Scalia the vast majority of the time. He's kind of the "poster boy" for conservatives. Review his decisions and see how often he votes in favor (regardless of precedent) of individual rights. He can make intelligent arguments for all of his decisions, but, bottom line, he votes for the state or the corporation almost all the time.

You can all bleet "I'm not angry and hateful, I'm compassionate" all you want, but those words don't match how you line up.

Jack said:

Laughable, your moniker says everything about you. However, the icing on the cake is that you can be perfectly described by the two words you misspelled: TOO PATHETIC.

laughable said:

first-rate come-back Jack, absolutely large…. you pick and choose two words to take action to… WOW, something I would imagine to see from your commander and Chief Mr. Bush. But he would by no means use the word “moniker” I deem we can both be in agreement on that one. LOL!!

Linda B said:

All right, Sanity, you say I am filled with anger and hate. Please point out which of my comments led you to that conclusion.

Better yet, why don't you read all of my comments and then read all of your comments and then think about who is filled with anger and hate?

One thing I am certain of: Even though you have not signed your name and I do not know your identity, you are someone I've never met.

Jack said:

Laughable, you've done it again. It's "Commander-IN-Chief," moron. No wonder you're a liberal.

laughable said:

and Jack, no wonder you're a "JACK AS*"

laughable said:

It's amazing, these right wing radical extremist (like Jack) can only attack others misspellings or missteps, instead of responding to facts written about their screwed up party. That’s LAUGHABLE!!! LOL!!!

Jack, you're a joke!!!

Jack said:

"no wonder you're a 'JACK AS*'"

I've been told that by better people than you, Laughable. The problem is, you didn't write any facts. Pick a topic, present a hypothesis, and present some facts to support that hypothesis, and then we can have a conversation. Your ranting about half-a-dozen topics in one paragraph is not a basis for conversation.

Jack said:

P.S. There is NO-ONE like me, right-wing or left.

ACTivist said:

Sanity?
You're showing your ignorance again. There are plenty of comments coming from mis-guided compassion. What about the facts?

Sanity said:

ACTivist,

I think you're missing my entire point. You can use "facts" to justify almost anything. For example, more than 40% of health care spending is for Americans 65 or older: http://www.rand.org/health/healthpubs/seniors.html, and our infant mortality rate is very poor: http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/index.html.

This is a problem, as infants obviously have much more potential to add materially to the country than sick, aged, old-timers. Therefore, it seems like we should move health care $$ to infants, or even better, just save the money as many older Americans are no value-add at all! Our country would obviously be far better off financially if older, sick Americans would do the noble thing and walk into a crematorium.

This, of course, is ridiculous in real life, and I’m sure there are very few people that are so lacking in compassion that they would advocate that, though you could easily justify it with data.

By the same token, I am not willing under any circumstances to force an American citizen to either (a) move to a country they've never been to or (b) be separated from their parents (presumably for a very long time) because their parents snuck into my country. I don't care what the facts are, it's just wrong to do that. Therefore we need people willing to step up and come up with fair, compassionate solutions, not just throw platitudes around.

Being humane, compassionate, having a far-seeing vision isn't always based on the facts of today. It's about doing what you know, in your heart, is the right thing. Not just for yourselves or the party, but for everyone.

laughable said:

LAUGHABLE AGAIN!!!

Jack you just enhanced my point that you radical right-wing extremists are so “out of touch” you actually need better clarification on what I wrote??? WOW,WOW!!!!

This stuff is in the news on a steady basis; you’re accurately showing that it is YOU who is the moron….. If you truthfully need someone to elaborate, I imagine it’s time for you to go see a doctor.

Jack said:

Sanity, American children go with their parents to foreign countries all the time. What's wrong with that? It is the parents' choice to take a job in a foreign country, and their children are forced to follow. It was the parents' choice to come here illegally. What's the difference, to the children, except that in the first case, the parents did NOT break the law?

Laughable -- can't back up your rants, huh? Let's take just ONE example -- sex scandals. Which Republicans did NOT resign when their scandal broke? Which Democrats did? Hmmm. Clinton even LIED UNDER OATH, but stayed in office. Kennedy killed a woman while driving drunk. He's still there. Barney Frank didn't just e-mail interns, he took them to foreign countries and had sex with them. He's still there.

Dan said:

Yes, we see how well the Dems are doing, so well that the approval ratings of Congress are at or near historical lows. Maybe I should start a pool on where it will finally bottom out, who wants in ?

prince, The Earnings Suspense file was created in 1936, it has been building for quite some time now. If I give you your assertion that the current annual growth is due completely to illegal aliens, that is well less than 1.5% of total annual SS payroll taxes. Again, your own argument dooms you..

Now that we have totally exposed some here as having no argument based in the real world, they resort to their final defense of name calling. Like we did not see this coming ?

I pledge that if I win the aforementioned pool, I will use the proceeds to buy lifetime passes for the It's A Small World ride at Disney for prince, Sanity and laughable...


zimzo said:

"Which Republicans did NOT resign when their scandal broke?"

David Vitter hasn't resigned. Neither has Ted Stevens, John Doolittle, Tom Feeney, Lisa Murkowski, Pete Domenici, Gary Miller, Heather Wilson, Rick Renzi...

Linda, I think your claims that conservatives are unfairly stereotyped as not being compassionate or being hateful would be a lot more believable if they were not usually on the side of people who are hateful and not compassionate. I suppose there are people who don't hate gays who are opposed to gay marriage, bu the fact is people who do hate gays are against gay marriage and to be opposed to gay marriage it seems to me you have to believe that gay relationships are inherently less worthy than straight ones. And there are probably people opposed to illegal immigration who don't hate immigrants but people who do hate immigrants are against illegal immigration and to believe, say, that they should all be forceably deported, driven from their homes, have their families broken up does seem to demonstrate a lack of compassion for what that would entail from an immigrants' point of view.

And your contention that you don't hate liberals would be a lot more believable if you didn't claim that liberals who are opposed to extreme anti-immigration measures are actually racist without providing a single example or piece of evidence to back up your claim or if you didn't use anti-gay code words like "gay activists" and the "gay lifestyle" to disparage those who support gay marriage and attack those who have had direct experience with anti-gay hatred as imagining things.

Linda B said:

Zimzo said: "Linda, I think your claims that conservatives are unfairly stereotyped as not being compassionate or being hateful would be a lot more believable if they were not usually on the side of people who are hateful and not compassionate."

Ok, this is kinda like saying, "I think your claiming that stereotypes of blacks being criminals would be a lot more believeable if they were not usually on the side of people who are criminals."

If you want to just believe your stereotypes and not listen to another viewpoint, it's cool by me, Zim.

laughable said:

Democrats weren’t even part of the post, we are chatting about the Republican’s, remember? Of course not, you can’t shield the Republicans blunders so let’s have a discussion about the other party…oh the Republicans are self destructing… I LOVE IT, love it so much it’s laughable!!

Linda B said:

Laughable, Are you prince's even weirder twin brother? (And since when do you get to dictate what people are chatting about? FWIW, the post was about immigration, not Republicans or Democrats.)

Jack said:

Zimzo:

Although I was talking about SEX scandals, I will address the others. First, only one was remotely a sex scandal: David Vitter allegedly used a prostitute. No charges have been filed.

Stevens is under investigation by the FBI for contact with someone who "has pled guilty to bribing Alaska legislators." Still no charges have been filed.

Doolittle is connected to Abramoff. Although Abramoff has been co-operating for 18 months now, still no charges have been filed against Doolittle.

Feeney -- May have violated House Ethics Rules. No laws were broken.

Murkowski -- May have purchased property below "market value." Sold back the property the day after ethics complaint was filed. Has Obama returned his property yet?

Domenici -- Another ethics violation. No laws broken.

Miller -- Some real estate transactions may or may not be subject to capital gains taxes. No charges have been filed.

Wilson -- Another ethics violation. No laws broken.

Renzi -- Sponsored legislation that benefited company of which his father is an Executive VP. How about Pelosi's husband's company?

Hmmm -- has anyone DIED because of the actions of these people? Similarly, how many people did Alberto Gonzales kill? How many did Janet Reno kill?

jacob said:

Jack,
WOW! Some has left the doors open and the libasylum. These new clowns make zimbat look completely cogent (almost). This is what we used to call in the Marine Corps a 'target rich' environment.

Jack said:

I hope your Saturday was equally "target rich."

ACTivist said:

Zippo,
Homosexuals are an abomniation to God and nature. Choose which to believe in. Anything that promotes the abomination is in itself an abomination. No hate. Get off the homosexual/racist bandwagon. Linda already told you what the post was about.

Sanity?
Don't break-up the families. Although it is the law (and needs to be changed) just the fact of being born here does not make you a citizen when the parents aren't here LEGALLY. Why do you think that the pregnant women rush the border? Freebies from the liberals. Try being compassionate with your fellow countrymen and stamp out illiteracy and famine here first. You say the infancy mortality rate is dismal? Fix it. It is right at YOUR front door. Worry about aliens AFTER you have cured all our ills. In the mean time write letters to those governments that are pushing the illegal alien agenda (including our own. Also send to those corporations that hire illegals and then stop purchasing their wares) and tell them to start taking care of their own people. Better yet, why don't you personnally make an appearance in these other countries and insite the populace to revolution if necessary so that they can have a better life without having to MOVE! Your work is cut out for you.

jacob said:

Jack,
Weather was gorgeous. The millet was still immature, so the 'targets' had nothing to eat.

Sanity said:

ACTivist: I'm overwhelmed with all the compassion just oozing out of you! You need some drugs, man!

Linda: I have to agree with Zizmo. If you're always agreeing with the angry, hateful folks, it's going to be hard to convince someone you're not also angry and hateful, regardless of what you've convinced yourself of.

Jack: Best not to start asking how many people were killed by someone in the Bush administration. You could possibly end up with (indirectly) well over 100,000. Probably don't want to go there.

Dan: I can't wait for the pass to It's a Small World, especially since the last time I went, it was closed for renovation! Only caveat: I don't have to go with Laughable, do I? Even I would find (s)he annoying after the first five minutes. ("...yeah, yeah, I get it; Dick's the devil incarnate, George is an idiot and all Republicans are fools. Can we talk about something else now?...") I might rather go with Jack!

ACTivist said:

Jacob,
Fowl weather already?

Linda B said:

Well, "Zizmo," as you like to call him, has never met me either.

Jacob said:

ACT,
yup. the specie be small, but its still good eats.

Jacob said:

(In)Sanity,
100K dead and its Bushes fault?! Thank you. LOL. I read the report, or was it 600K? Basically the yahoos who wrote it performed a laughably incompetent actuarial analysis of the entire Iraqi populous, and then proceeded to blame Bush for the traffic deaths, deaths due to age etc, and roll them up with the combat deaths in country. The best part is they blame Bush for all the combat deaths.

If one is going to combine the macabre with the illogical as those two geniuses did then one ought to offset the killing that would have occurred had ol Saddam stayed in power. That SOB was killing on average over 150K a year.

So by extending the fallacy to its illogical conclusion, Bush has saved over 500K lives.

zimzo said:

Sorry, Linda, but your analogy was species. Anyone who believed that there was a correlation between criminality and race would be by definition a racist. To acknowledge a correlation between the positions that many conservatives take and the postions that many hateful and intolerant people take is merely to state a fact. It is certainly possible that this is just a coincidence and that conservatives can justify their positions by other rationales (such as, for example, Barry Goldwater's claim that he opposed Civil Rights laws because he felt they violated state's rights not because he was racist--a position that in his case is believable if misguided and one he later repudiated) but it would take an awful lot of convincing to explain why conservatives almost always just happen to take the same side as those who are hateful and intolerant. And when people like ACTivist say things like "Homosexuals are an abomniation to God and nature"--and none of you disagree--it doesn't help your cause.

zimzo said:

I meant specious, but it certainly could be a new species--if you believe in evolution, which many conservatives don't, which just fits into another stereotype.

Linda B said:

I meant the analogy more in the "pretty much makes it impossible to discuss cuz how you gonna convince someone who says that of anything different" sense.

Jack said:

"Anyone who believed that there was a correlation between criminality and race would be by definition a racist."

By whose definition, zimzo? Yours?

The problem is that there IS just such a correlation, at least in the United States. However, since there has been no physiological difference discovered that could account for the disparity in crime rates, and considering that the violent crime rates are so much higher in Canada despite their also being mostly White, we must look for other reasons for the disparity. One reason that fits the facts is the difference in cultures. It can explain both in higher crime rates among Blacks and the higher crime rates in Canada and Britain.

So pointing out the disparities in crime rates is not RACIST, which Websters defines as one who practices racism, defined as "a doctrine or teaching, without scientific support, that claims to find racial differences in character, intelligence, etc., that asserts the superiority of one race over another or others, and that seeks to maintain the supposed purity of a race or the races."

So saying that the crime rate among Blacks is higher because they are genetically inferior would be a racist comment. Simply pointing out the fact that they have a higher crime rate is not.

Linda B said:

Ozmiz, the Racist Dragon
A One-Act Play by Adnil Iksnizdub

Ozmiz: All blacks are criminals.

Badnil: No, there are actually many blacks who are wonderful people.

Ozmiz: Just how can criminals be wonderful people?

Badnil: [Shakes head. Walks away sadly.]

Ytinas: Why is she so filled with hate and anger?

[Curtain falls]

Sanity said:

Linda (oops, I mean Badnil),

I have to give you "cute" points at least!

Jack,
I agree that simply pointing out the fact that blacks have a higher crime rate is not racist. The problem is that it's an easy step to infer that the black crime rate is higher BECAUSE they're black. That's racist.

Unfortunately, race is a trivially-noticed characteristic so that it's easy to generate statistics based on race. Assuming that race, in and of itself, doesn't have a causative effect on crime, then the statistic is meaningless.

Better to have statistics based on, say, income. That's much more likely to cause crime.

I'm not much of a proponent of any race-based statistics except to show patterns of discrimination.

Jack said:

"The problem is that it's an easy step to infer that the black crime rate is higher BECAUSE they're black."

And every time someone mentions such statistics, the LIBERALS infer that the disparities are the result of Blacks' being Blacks. Therefore, the LIBERALS are the racists!

"Assuming that race, in and of itself, doesn't have a causative effect on crime, then the statistic is meaningless."

But CULTURE does.

"Better to have statistics based on, say, income. That's much more likely to cause crime."

Actually, if you do some study, you will find that, while poverty does correlate with higher violent crime rates, race correlates much more: http://www.jstor.org/view/08852731/ap040107/04a00060/0

We see that a 16-year-old Black has a 29% chance of being incarcerated sometime in his life, but that is only 4% for a White male. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/Race_Prison_Poverty.html

However, 24.7% of Blacks were poor in 2004 versus 8.6% of Whites: http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/#4

So taking poverty into account, the aforementioned Black is still 2.5 times more likely to be incarcerated in his life than a White in the same economic conditions.

Since Blacks are 12% of the population, and Whites about 74%, poor Blacks are 3.0% of the population, and poor Whites 6.4%. But of the murderers whose race was known in 2004, 5,339 were White and 5,608 were Black: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/CIUS2004.pdf That means that, when poverty is factored out, a Black is STILL 2.3 times more likely to commit a murder.

Now, we get to the juicy stuff. Referring to the earlier link on poverty rates, we also see that there were 4049k Black children in poverty and 4507k White children in poverty in 2004. Since most violent crimes are committed by children and young adults (the mode is in the 20-24 age bracket), this is a useful comparison. We see now only a 17% greater chance that a Black will commit murder.

Harking back to the links above, we also see that the illegitimacy rate for Blacks is about three times the rate for Whites. Illegitimacy is a leading cause of child poverty. Again, we get back to culture.

zimzo said:

Linda: "I meant the analogy more in the "pretty much makes it impossible to discuss cuz how you gonna convince someone who says that of anything different" sense."

It's only impossible to discuss, Linda, because you refuse to discuss it. Every time someone on your side stereotypes gays or immigrants and we point out that these stereotypes are false and are evidence of homophobia or racism, you guys claim that it is we who are stereotyping conservatives and that it's impossible to have a discussion. If you are going to claim that immigrants are prone to criminality or learn English at lower rates than their predecessors or spread disease, or that gays are more likely to molest children or incapable of serving in the military or are unhealthy and have shorter lifespans then you should be able to prove it with evidence that does not come from flawed studies conducted by partisan groups with an agenda or a few anecdotes. When someone on your side says something clearly hateful like "Homosexuals are an abomniation (sic) to God and nature" then you should call them on it. And if you are going to accuse people opposed to anti-immigration activists of being racists or claim that someone who has experienced anti-gay hatred of imagining things then you should be able to back that up with something other than your own wishful thinking.

Whenever I have pointed out examples of racist rhetoric and anti-gay stereotyping here, and showed why these statements are false, usually I am personally attacked or told that to even point these things out is to preclude discussion. So instead of complaining that it is impossible to have a discussion after you have been called on statements like the ones I pointed out above, why don't you provide us examples of people who are opposed to anti-immigration activists who are racists or people who are opposed to gay marriage who don't believe that gay relationships are inherently less worthy than straight ones. Or if you can't do that, then maybe you should re-examine your own prejudices and stereotypes and take a closer look at those you are defending.

zimzo said:

As far as Republicans resigning over scandals, Jack, nice example of moving the goalposts once again. And by the way, Craig is reconsidering whether he should resign.

Sanity said:

Jack, as soon as you get close to saying something I agree with, you throw in some anti-whatever rhetoric.

"And every time someone mentions such statistics, the LIBERALS infer that the disparities are the result of Blacks' being Blacks. Therefore, the LIBERALS are the racists!"

Liberals don't think that the disparities are because blacks are blacks. They think the disparities are because you conservatives treat blacks like crap so we can't blame the blacks for anything. You might think this is ludicrous thinking, but it's not racist. More apologist than anything.

I agree about the culture. There are a lot of cultural factors negatively affecting not just blacks, but all races. Treating smart kids like undesirables for instance.

The real question is how do we change the cultures that cause these problems without resorting to "holier than thou" rhetoric or focusing on "cultural" issues that aren't as important. If you conservative types spent 1/2 the time and $$ on trying to change black culture so they stop killing each other as you do trying to change gays or yammering about interns in the oval office, the country would be far better off.

Since you don't, you come across as (a) not caring about blacks, and (b) trying to shove your morals down other people's throats. Neither is compassionate.

Jack said:

"Liberals don't think that the disparities are because blacks are blacks."

Then why would you infer that when someone mentions racial disparities?

"They think the disparities are because you conservatives treat blacks like crap so we can't blame the blacks for anything."

That would explain why the African immigrants are the most educated of any immigrant group: http://www.nigeriavillagesquare1.com/Articles/Guest/2004/12/george-bush-and-african-immigrants.html

In fact, "[the] average annual personal income of African immigrants was about $26,000, nearly $2,000 higher than that of American-born workers." http://www.mshale.com/article.cfm?articleID=1464

It MUST be racism.

Please. Are we forcing Black women to have babies out of wedlock? No. Are we forcing the Black men to abandon their children? No.

"You might think this is ludicrous thinking, but it's not racist."

Yes, it is racist. By not holding Blacks responsible for their own actions, you imply that are incapable of controlling themselves. That's pure Bravo Sierra.

"I agree about the culture. There are a lot of cultural factors negatively affecting not just blacks, but all races. Treating smart kids like undesirables for instance."

We do agree on something.

'If you conservative types spent 1/2 the time and $$ on trying to change black culture...."

Well with your "War on Poverty," which penalizes work, thrift, and marriage, you socialist types HAVE changed the Black culture. Thanks a lot. Do you have any other brilliant ideas of how to change the culture?

Sanity said:

"Then why would you infer that when someone mentions racial disparities?"

Liberals don't. Conservatives do to justify discrimination against blacks.

"That would explain why the African immigrants are the most educated of any immigrant group..."

It's the difference between a few years here and 200+ years of slavery, discrimination, and being lynched. Tends to affect one when that happens.

"Yes, it is racist. By not holding Blacks responsible for their own actions, you imply that are incapable of controlling themselves. That's pure Bravo Sierra."

Liberals (at least most of them) do hold blacks responsible for their own actions. It's a matter of providing help to those that have been forcibly held back most of their lives.

"Well with your "War on Poverty..."

That's old news Jack. Clinton fixed that early on in his presidency.

Again, I hear conservatives gripin' and bitchin' but I don't hear any constructive solutions, "brilliant" or otherwise that aren't for the purpose of elevating white, Christian, hetero males.

Jack said:

inSanity, you said, "The problem is that it's an easy step to infer that the black crime rate is higher BECAUSE they're black."

The listener or reader INFERs. Whenever a conservative quotes any statistics that put Blacks in a bad light, socialists such as you INFER either that the cause must be because Blacks are inferior, or that the one quoting the statistics thinks that. Either way, the conversation comes to a halt because of the ridiculous inference. That is exactly what the socialists want, because then the search for root causes also comes to a halt.

"It's the difference between a few years here and 200+ years of slavery, discrimination, and being lynched. Tends to affect one when that happens."

So you concur that the problem IS the culture? Of course, it's still all Whitey's fault, so Whitey should "fix" their culture.

"Liberals (at least most of them) do hold blacks responsible for their own actions."

That does not comport with your earlier statement ( September 5, 2007 1:20 PM) that, "we can't blame the blacks for anything."

"It's a matter of providing help to those that have been forcibly held back most of their lives."

Right. They go to the same schools my children do. In fact, they are admitted to elite schools such as Thomas Jefferson with LOWER grades and test scores than White children are.

"Clinton fixed [the welfare system] early on in his presidency."

Hardly. The reforms that were made were rammed down his throat by the Republican Congress. BJ didn't support it until he had to.

"I don't hear any constructive solutions."

Nor are you likely to. The culture has to change. Do you have any ideas of how to constructively change a culture from the outside?

All I hear from the socialists is blaming Whitey for everything. Where are your constructive solutions, brilliant or otherwise, that aren't for the purpose of taking away individual liberties and expanding the reach and control of the government?

Sanity said:

And you wonder why we think you're full of anger and hate and devoid of compassion?

ACTivist said:

Sanity?

"It's the same ol' story,
Same ol song and dance!"
Aerosmith

Jack said:

I have never been known to suffer fools gladly.

Sanity said:

ACTivist: You're right! It will continue to be "the same ol' story" until we can squeeze out a smidge of compassion, understanding, and empathy out of you. I understand we may wait a long time.

Jack: Let me know if you're calling me a fool, especially considering that your arguments are against nothing that I've claimed to have actually said. You create a straw-man liberal and then argue against the straw-man you've created. Real tough.

All I hear is nothing constructive, everything destructive.

BTW: Clinton didn't have to do anything. He could have told the republicans to stuff it like he did later on. Instead, it was a brilliant negotiated compromise showing he was on "the right of the left".

He had Newt by the nuts every which way. Why do you think Newt got pushed out after the '98 elections? Even after all the impeachment and everything else, it was obvious the public wasn't buying his crap. I'm done here. You're too much the "uber curmudgeon".

ACTivist said:

Sanity?

You win. You want compassion, I'll show you compassion:
Jack, you have been called a "curmudgeon". I can empathize. My friends and girlfriend likened me the same way. I have learned to live with this moniker and if you need support in this matter, I just want you to know that I am there for you.

Sanity?, I think that that was more than a smidge. Thanks for making me a better person.

Jacob said:

Insanity,
no matter how you slice it, history will not be kind to Billy J Clinton. All hype aside he ignored a terrorist threat that kept growing. Please recall all the attacks in the 90's. His response was to treat it like it was a criminal issue. Wrong model.

Jacob said:

Insanity,
One more thing, Jack is not a curmudgeon, he is a coot. Think crazy old guy in rocking chair on his porch yelling at the kids in the street.

Jack said:

...while cleaning my pump-action 12-gauge!

Anyway, inSanity, I didn't create the liberal straw-heads, they were already there.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM