Modern Tribalist on Hispanic illegals

Posted by stari_momak on May 28, 2005, 06:48 PM | #

We live in a nation of immigrants, yes, but an important point that gets lost in the shuffle is that legal and illegal immigration are two different things.

(1) As an American who is not an immigrant, whose parents are not immigrants, whose grandparents were not immigrants, and only one pair of greatgrandparents were immigrants, I reject the statement that we are a ‘nation of immigrants’.  But this has all been worked over by Brimelow, Huntington, Williamson, and others.

(2) Just how different is legal from illegal immigration? No doubt a bit more skilled, a bit more ‘diverse’. But legal immigration into the country is based primarily on nepotism (called ‘family reunification’); perversely, those newest in the US of A have the most say over who gets in, while a ‘old stock’ American has literally none. The result is that legal immigration is not especially educated or skilled. The US system is not like Australia’s.

Posted by seelow heights on May 28, 2005, 08:00 PM | #

WE can understand why the left hates the traditional American majority, but why does the same hold true for the bulk of neocons and the Bush administration? Maybe Bush is influenced by the neocon view that Euro-Americans are genetically programed to be ant-semitic and should be replaced by another people. Apparently the neocons don’t really trust their current allies on the Christian Right and think mestizos will be more malleable.

Posted by Svigor on May 28, 2005, 09:20 PM | #

(1) As an American who is not an immigrant, whose parents are not immigrants, whose grandparents were not immigrants, and only one pair of greatgrandparents were immigrants, I reject the statement that we are a ‘nation of immigrants’.  But this has all been worked over by Brimelow, Huntington, Williamson, and others.

Yeah, what a tired old canard.  My father’s family has been here since well before the revolution.  Are they immigrants?

Colonists aren’t immigrants. How does one immigrate to a nation that one creates oneself?  The “nation of immigrants” thing is silly; am I to assume that Congress was there, comprised of Amerinds and making immigration laws for us all to “immigrate” under?

Posted by Stuka on May 29, 2005, 10:12 AM | #

Every country on earth is a “nation of immigrants” if you go back far enough in time.

Posted by ben tillman on May 29, 2005, 05:26 PM | #

My objection is not to the claim that we are a “nation of immigrants”; it is to the much more pernicious notion that that purported fact has any implications for present policy.  It does not.

The underlying notion is that, as immigrants (or their descendants), we may not justly deny the same opportunity to others.  But that’s fallacious.  The potential immigrants are not the ones who gave us the opportunity to immigrate.  Any moral obligations—any obligations of “fairness”—are owed to those who preceded us to this land and have shared its bounty with us.  The “nation of immigrants” argument is utterly irrational.

Posted by John S Bolton on May 29, 2005, 05:26 PM | #

It is good that someone would mention that the net taxpayer exists, and in regard of immigration policy. How can human beings be so far out of sympathy with the net taxpayer, as to have empathy for those who plunder him, by mere aggression, as such foreigners use net public subsidy. Worse, our officials and scholars pretend that one must be in sympathy with the immigrant looter, and want to increase his numbers, while simultaneously pretending that the net taxpayer does not exist. The increase of aggression cannot be good; and there is no mass immigration policy, in Australia or anywhere else, which does not increase the volume of aggression upon the net taxpayer. Absurdly we are asked to give rights to foreign criminals, which citizens do not possess , as alluded to above. One example is foreign criminals being given drivers licenses without needing valid ID. Another is foreign criminals not being prosecuted for use of aliases in a criminal undertaking.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 06:28 PM | #

“One example is foreign criminals being given drivers licenses without needing valid ID. Another is foreign criminals not being prosecuted for use of aliases in a criminal undertaking.”  (—John B.)

A third is domestic criminals—George Bush and Karl Rove—not being prosecuted for high treason.  An outrage!