Thread: Cinco to Midnight: The Great Mexican End Game

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/ ... at_me.html

May 14, 2010
Cinco to Midnight: The Great Mexican End Game
By Selwyn Duke
Recently, columnist Charles Krauthammer expressed support for amnesty for illegals, while Newt Gingrich advocated a path to what he called "legality." The two men stipulated that border control must come first, but still, what makes two conservatives such weak sisters on this issue? Perhaps part of the answer was provided by Dick Morris, who said that immigration is a losing issue for Republicans.

Morris is no pillar of principle, but he knows political trends. What's his reasoning? Over the short term, a hard-line immigration stance benefits many politicians; as for the long term, however, there's something called demographic change.

Hispanics are the most rapidly growing group in the nation. In fact, if current immigration and birthrate trends continue, Hispanics will become America's largest ethnic group during the next century. Constituting fifteen percent of the population already, they're poised to become twenty-nine percent by 2050.

This is relevant because, while many rationalize away the reality, a majority of Hispanics oppose tighter border control. For example, one survey showed that 81 percent of Latinos in Arizona oppose their state's new immigration law, with 70 percent registering strong disapproval.

Because of this, many have warned Republicans against "alienating" this burgeoning voting bloc.For instance, Simon Rosenberg, the head of a group that studies such matters, said, "If the Republicans don't make their peace with Hispanic voters, they're not going to win presidential elections anymore. The math just isn't there."

Unfortunately, the common sense just isn't there, either. That is, while Republicans recognize this electoral reality, they don't seem to ask (honestly) what's necessary to avoid this alienation. Because if they did, they'd realize that the new immigrants' affinity for liberalism goes far beyond a love for porous borders.

Question: If we imported millions of Scandinavians -- who have created the most liberal governments on Earth -- would we expect them to magically change their ideology upon seeing American terra firma? If not, why would we expect otherwise with south-of-the-border socialists? If they choose Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales types below the Rio Grande, why wouldn't they above it? Geography doesn't change ideology.

Despite this, many Republicans claim they can "reach out" to Hispanic voters and woo them. This is fantasy. Today's immigrants, most of whom are Hispanic, vote Democrat approximately 70 to 80 percent of the time (Bush did better, but surprise, surprise, he favored amnesty for illegals), and this won't change. Oh, there is one way woo them: Adopt Democrat policies across the board (you can remain pro-life and against faux marriage) -- favoring socialist measures and big government.

This is, of course, why leftist politicians love unfettered immigration so much: They are importing their voters -- socialist voters.

Now, some claim that since socialism is quintessentially un-American, time, prosperity, and acculturation will purge it from new populations. This is also fantasy. Would you expect this with the Scandinavians? As for prosperity, upper classes were more likely to vote for Barack Obama than lower ones. And acculturation? The pressure today is not to assimilate, but, owing to multiculturalism, to cling to your ethnicity.

The symptoms of this abound. We have seen new arrivals protest in the streets wielding signs stating "Gringo Go Home" and the shocking video of California teacher Ron Gochez calling for a Mexican communist revolt in the U.S. Then there was the recent incident in which a girl was told that her drawing of an American flag was offensive, and another where students were punished for wearing American flag-themed clothing. And both of these travesties were the handiwork of a teacher or administrator who reflects the anti-Americanism now permeating the establishment.

It also, sadly, reflects many on the ground. For instance, commenting on the second incident, student Annicia Nunez opined, "I think they [the flag-clothing wearers] should apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day. We don't deserve to be get [sic] disrespected like that. We wouldn't do that on Fourth of July." Like many, this girl draws an equivalence between American and foreign holidays. Don't ask if she considers herself American. The only question is if she views herself as Mexican or shows some deference to hyphenation.

And we have become a hyphened nation, less capable than ever of assimilating immigrants. Yet we now have more than ever to assimilate. While we admitted only around 250,000 immigrants annually during most of our history, that number has ballooned to approximately 1 million (85 percent of whom hail from the third world and Asia). To paraphrase columnist Frosty Wooldridge, the rate of immigration long ago exceeded the rate of assimilation.

Then there is an even more troubling factor: the consequences of taking in so many immigrants from just one country.

In a relatively recent phenomenon, approximately 50 percent of legal immigrants have been coming from Mexico. And about 67 percent of American Hispanics have origins in that nation; this amounts to, including illegals, a population of approximately 20 to 30 million -- about 20 percent of Mexico's population. What are the consequences of such an unbalanced immigration policy? University of Edinburgh professor Stephen Tierney explains them very well in his book Multiculturalism and the Canadian Constitution, writing:

In a situation in which immigrants are divided into many different groups originating in distant countries, there is no feasible prospect of any particular immigrant group's challenging the hegemony of the national language [press one for English, folks?] and institutions. These groups may form an alliance among themselves to fight for better treatment and accommodations, but such an alliance can only be developed within the language and institutions of the host society and, hence, is integrative. In situations in which a single dominant immigrant group originates in a neighbouring country, the dynamics may be very different. The Arabs in Spain, and Mexicans in the United States, do not need allies among other immigrant groups. One could imagine claims for Arabic or Spanish to be declared a second official language, at least in regions where they are concentrated, and these immigrants could seek support from their neighbouring home country for such claims - in effect, establishing a kind of transnational extension of their original homeland in their new neighbouring country of residence.


Note that parts of the U.S. are already so heavily Mexican that their residents perceive no need to assimilate. Also note that these immigrants have in fact received support from Mexico, as its government has interfered in our domestic affairs and demanded that they be accommodated.

Professor Tierney goes on to write, "This fear [of cultural genocide] is often compounded in situations where the immigrant group has historic claims against the receiving country. ... For example, in the Mexican-United States case ..."

In this case ... what? There is just such a claim. Sure, it's specious, but good luck convincing the Reconquistas of this. As pundit Dr. Jack Wheeler points out here, Mexico's rulers engender hatred toward the U.S. by, among other things, placing an enormous map depicting Greater Mexico -- which includes much of our land -- near the entrance of Mexico City's Museum of National History. Wheeler writes, "Every class of students on a field trip from their school to the museum is made to sit down and gaze up at the huge map, while the teacher explains how so much of Los Estados Unidos was stolen from Mexico and really belongs to them." The rationale is that all the land treaties the U.S. made with European powers, such as the Louisiana Purchase, were illegal and that the regions thus obtained rightfully belong to Mexico. States Wheeler, "Every Mexican national legally or illegally in the US is told by the Mexican government his or her allegiance is to Mexico -- not America."

Wheeler also claims that Mexico owes its independence to us, as we helped defeat its French overlords. But belaboring the point is fruitless, as reason plays less of a role in people's decisions and behavior than many of us like to think. You won't reason a person out of ethnic and national patriotism -- and citizenship tests certainly won't purge either from them. Possession is nine-tenths of the law, like it or not. The question is, who will possess the American lands in question -- and what will American culture be possessed of -- a generation or two hence?

So not all immigration is created equal, and Mexican immigration is unique. For it is not just the migration of individuals -- it is the transplantation of a foreign nation into the body of our own.

This is just one reason (recently naturalized Times Square bomber types are another) I've long advocated at least a moratorium on all immigration. The people make the country and government, not the other way around.

Thus, a debate about immigration policy is nothing less than a discussion about what kind of nation we wish to be. Will it be Mexico North? Iran West? Right now we're looking more like the Balkans.

In fact, with a socialist voting bloc that threatens to give us a Hugo Chávez North sometime in the future -- that is, unless current trends can be reversed -- the realizing of Mexican nationalists' Aztlan dream may not be lamentable. A partitioning of the U.S. may offer the only hope of enjoying a land where the American dream lives on.

Don't like the sound of that? Then you'd better start reversing those trends and initiate that immigration discussion fast -- in approximately twenty years ago. Because it's later than you think -- about cinco to midnight for America.

Our country is going to be given away if the issue of illegal immigration is not acted upon fast. We are running out of time and our corrupted politicians and pro-invaders know this. Everyday in which they drag their feet on this issue and refuse to enforce our immigration laws, is another day in which thousands of anchor babies are born and many more breach our borders illegally.

We think we are winning by thwarting their efforts to pass amnesty. But this is just a ruse and they know it. While our efforts are devoted to stopping amnesty, they continue to enter this country illegally and breed more anchor babies. The amnesty issue is just a diversion and clever one at that. While our eyes are focused on one hand, the other hand is robbing us blind!

The invaders and advocates do not have to pass any legislation as they are simply buying crucial time in order to allow more illegals to enter this country and breed. As long as they can hold off any attempts to pass laws to combat illegal immigration, they are buying more time and wasting our precious time to turn the tide on this war. As long as they can protest attempts to enforce immigration law they are buying the time they need. This is exactly the case with SB1070. One day we will wake up and it will be too late.

Of course we need to fight amnesty and never give in to this shame. But if Americans do not stand up and unite ( I think more Americans are waking up to this invasion) on the issue of illegal immigration, we will lose this country. All trends would seem to indicate it's that serious.

This is the road we are headed down at the moment and it's a dead end for this country unless we can turn the car around.

I don't agree with this completely. There are valid points, however, legal Hispanics are beginning to realize that illegals are taking their jobs, not just those of Gringos. Legal immigrants from Mexico are still poorly educated for the most part. They are in jobs that require little skill. In other words, the jobs taken by illegals.

We need to raise, again, the anchor citizenship issue with the new Congress. I know that is easier said than done, but the new Republican members---and chastened Democrats---should make it easier. A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to meet the likely new chairman, in the US House, Paul Ryan, of the Budget Committee, who is wrestling with entitlement spending. I have been sending articles about our overly generous handouts to refugees, and foreign retirees.

Good points ReggieMay. Keep in mind that even when illegal invaders take jobs that require little skill, they still need management and supervisors that can communicate with them to direct the work force.

It's happening in CA at an alarming rate. For example, a warehouse supervisor is a pretty good job, sometimes requiring a college degree and several years experience. Some positions with international shipping companies can start at $50,000 a year.

However, if that company hires nothing but illegal invaders to perform the non-skilled labor in the warehouse( I'm confident plenty of American citizens would perform this non-skilled labor), the warehouse supervisor will be required to also speak spanish in order to direct his staff. This is only one example.

American citizens are impacted even if they do not perform those non-skilled jobs that illegals tend to perform. Of course it's more severe in some states than others at the moment. But if trends continue the way they are with no significant legislation passed to stop this invasion, then it will only get worse.

States must have the right to enact laws as they see fit to combat this invasion, without the interference from the federal government, who has little desire to stop this invasion.

Originally Posted by Captainron

We need to raise, again, the anchor citizenship issue with the new Congress. I know that is easier said than done, but the new Republican members---and chastened Democrats---should make it easier. A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to meet the likely new chairman, in the US House, Paul Ryan, of the Budget Committee, who is wrestling with entitlement spending. I have been sending articles about our overly generous handouts to refugees, and foreign retirees.

Ditto Captainron! This is very important and a crucial component to stopping this invasion. IMHO, this would substantially reduce the impact this invasion is having on our society in a number of ways.

This thread gets to the crux of the matter

Its dangerous ground on this forum though

Yes the MAIN problem is illegal immigration from MEXICO
You have millions of illegals spawning anchor babies that become citizens with every right to vote when they turn 18.

You have great masses sneaking in here all the time , they add more power to this block , They are leaving a failed country , but they want this country to be re made in the image of mexico

This numbers come assumed power
They march in our streets , they make demands , they wave the flag of mexico in our faces and then cry when we want it stopped , they scream racism , they claim human rights and the right to work here.

Bull carp

Our govt needs to , and must be made to put a stop to this idiocy , or before long we will be ruled by mexico

And I think every one of you knows this, its not about race and every thing about invasion

And I think every one of you knows this, its not about race and every thing about invasion

To us it's not about race, to them it is all about race, go read my post about the book La Raza Cosmica, which the National Council of La Raza got their name from.

Originally Posted by Bowman

And I think every one of you knows this, its not about race and every thing about invasion

To us it's not about race, to them it is all about race, go read my post about the book La Raza Cosmica, which the National Council of La Raza got their name from.

I am very familiar with their whole movement

If 99% of the American public was also , they would be scared to death

A little refresher course for those that are new or don't know what we are REALLY fighting

http://www.utpa.edu/orgs/mecha/St_Barbara.html

And if you think they have forgotten this , your sadly mistaken

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_de_San_Diego

"It called for the recruitment of native Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, African-Americans, and native Americans to rebel against the white population of the border states by killing every male of sixteen and above within a set period of time"