Thread: A letter to Vinny Fox from Fred

I'm not sure how long ago this was posted but I'm pretty sure from reading it, it was before the 2004 elections. I like this guy's take on mexicans. If it wasn't true I'd be laughing.

Talkin' Turkey With Vicente Fox

The Infinitude Of Pedro



Recently I returned to Washington from three months down on the West Coast of Mexico. I found that Vicente Fox, presidente de, was in the city. Yep. He was here to demand --demand, mind you -- that Jorge Arbusto, leader of the US and by implication everywhere else, give amnesty to all the Mexicans who are illegally in this country. Which, shortly, in all likelihood, will be all of them.

So I girded my loins, and wrote Fox a letter, knowing that it would alter his behavior for the better. Managing the world is one of the services of this column.

"Dear Vinny (you can call me Fred),

Now see here, Vin. Enough is enough. We need to sit down and talk turkey about this immigration thing, like men, and not act like State Department types. I mean, we're not transvestites.

Now, I was just in Mexico, and one thing struck me about it: The place was just running over with Mexicans. (And we thought we had an immigration problem.) The more I think about it, the more I think both countries have the same problem. Too many Mexicans.

Nothing personal against you, Vin. As Mexican presidents go, you're not bad. Of course after seventy years of the PRI, it would be hard to be bad. And I don't have any objection to Mexicans in reasonable numbers. I like Mexicans. That's why I spend time in Mexico. In reasonable numbers, we could bring them up to first-world standards, and they could teach us to salsa. Fact is, Presbyterians can't dance. A little Latin savor might help.

But what makes you think we want seven million Mexicans? And that's just this year.

Further -- if I may speak freely -- who the hell are you to be demanding anything at all?

Note, Vinny, we're not talking seven million Mexican nuclear physicists, if there is one. I might not mind a bunch of doctors and engineers. They'd be assimilable. We could tax them, and waste the money on silly social projects that wouldn't work this time either.

But we're not getting doctors. I reckon med school takes a lot of time, and they don't learn to swim.

No. We're getting folks who can't make it in Mexico -- the uneducated, the uncultivated, the ones that show signs of staying that way. It's not a brain drain, but more a drain drain. (A little humor. Scintillating Anglo-Saxon wit.)

Now, if these folks wanted to act like Vietnamese, and make straight As and go to Harvard, it'd be a different story. But I don't see it. We're getting too many, and the wrong ones. They're going to clump together and be more trouble than Frenchmen in Quebec. Or at least it looks that way.

That's scary, Vin. We have lots of hard-working Latinos here, a lot of'em from Salvador. The adults seem law-abiding when sober, which is sometimes. They start restaurants, and that's a good sign. I like them fine. But I don't see a lot of books.

Doesn't look good, Vinny.

I've got an idea. What say we talk about things straightforwardly for a moment? Ain't that a concept? Might revolutionize politics. But since this is just a private communication between you and me, Vinny, I figure we can hazard honesty. It's not like I'm going to put it on the Internet or anything.

Fact is, Mexico is outbreeding its economy, and hasn't got the sense to stop. The economy is less than wildly promising. Nowhere in Latin America seems much better. Latin cultures just aren't real dynamic. What worries you, Vin, is that too many hungry people could lead to social unrest and revolution. Think Chiapas. So you want to unload them on us.

Ain't that so?

That's your end of the stick. On ours, George desperately wants to be re-elected, by any means, at any cost to anybody or anything, including the country and his party. So he's sucking up to blacks, who won't vote for him anyway, and to Latinos, some of whom will if he gets them amnesty, and will then vote Democratic for the rest of time. If he has to, he'll turn the United States into an irremediably divided country facing a century of hostility.

Business wants amnesty because it wants cheap labor, which won't stay cheap, and the Democrats want another permanent welfare bloc to control the presidency.

The question, Vinny (and we both know it) is whether Bush can buy more Mexican votes with amnesty than he'll lose from people who, from simple disgust, just won't vote at all. Me, for example.

And we both know that if you get amnesty for today's illegals, ten million more will leak across the border before long and we'll need another amnesty. That's the scam, isn't it? History being driven by inadequate contraception. Pretty.

If I were not as scrupulously courteous as I am, I might ask: Why do you think America has a duty to take your population overflow? Putting it bluntly, if you can't keep your pants up, then you can raise them. (The offspring, I mean. Some metaphors don't work as well as expected.)

I've got in front of me a Gallup Poll that says only six percent of Americans want a blanket amnesty. That may be a majority in Mexico. In America it will pass for a majority, because in our system we do not consult the populace on matters of importance. In the next election here, people who oppose immigration will have a choice between Bush, who favors unrestricted amnesty, and the Democrats, who will favor unrestricted immigration. The ninety-four percent who disagree will be marginalized as cranks.

The real question isn't one that directly concerns you, Vinny. We are in the middle of learning whether there is anything at all that cannot be inflicted on the American public -- whether people with cable TV can rouse themselves to resist, well, anything. A greater question is whether there exists any effective means of resistance. I don't think so. But we shall see.

Yours cordially,

Federico" (www.Fredoneverything.net)

LOL!!LOL!! Oh that is so true and has the irony of being funny too. Who is this guy? Did he really send this letter? I can only hope, could you imagine the steam coming out of Vicente Fox's ears after reading this (can he read?).

On the AOL message boards, there was this young person making idle threats about a Latino invasion and takeover, she/he said "the Mexican you have to fear is an educated Mexican". I was going to be snarky and ask "is there actually educated Mexicans, I heard rumors, but thought it was just a myth".

This is Fred Reed at www.fredoneverything.net. I've read many of his columns but have never seen this one before. I hope he really did send it to Vinny.

Fred writes about Mexico often and lives there or has lived there. I think the term is expatriate. Fred also writes many complimentary things about Mexico and he has a Mexican girlfriend.

He also wrote a column last Fall about the riots in Paris. If you go to his website and click "Fred Columns" it is a little way down the list. It's listed as "Paris Burns." The full title is "Paris Burns Again. Let's Roast Frankfurters." I'd provide the direct link but I'm having some problems with my toolbar right now and the link doesn't appear so I can cut and paste.

Originally Posted by AmericanElizabeth

I was going to be snarky and ask "is there actually educated Mexicans, I heard rumors, but thought it was just a myth".

HA HA! Snark away!

I think the "education" she/he speaks of is the propoganda drivel they're being fed about Atzlan, Reconquista, etc. ad nauseum.

That's about the only "education" the illegals know. What's the percentage of Hispanics dropping out of high school? Can't remember but it's pretty high. Yup, real educated!

It is higher than 50% dropout rate. I watched Lou Dobbs with the La Raza woman, and he reminded her of the fact that over 50% of Hispanics drop out of high school.

They have little regard for education when they come here, because it is not from their social upbringing, only earning money is, otherwise living for the moment. Whereas most Americans encourage their children into a better education and higher education as we see it as whole, it benefits yourself for the future, and it benefits our society for the future.

Irregardless, I don't think I'll be putting my kids back in the public schools. It's all gone downhill in Oregon.

Another great read from Freed. I'v been reading his stuff for awhile now and he has a unique perspective on things.

direct link here: http://fredoneverything.net/Immigration.shtml

Immigration

Better Than Ebola. About A Draw With Smallpox.



What if we are wrong? What if different kinds of people just plain don’t want to live together? What if federal bullying, stamping our feet, and holding our breath and turning blue won’t change things?

A powerful current in today’s compulsorily appropriate thought is that hostility between groups is anomalous and remediable, an exception to natural law – that it results from poor socialization, defective character, or conservative politics. If only we understood each other we would then love one another. Such is the theory.

But we don’t love each other.

When the desired affections fail to develop, which is the usual outcome, we try compulsion. People must love each other, under penalty of law. Any expression of displeasure with another group is punished. We brainwash our children with an almost North Korean intensity to persuade them that groups should cuddle and value one another.

And still it doesn’t work. Might it not be just a bad idea?

If one looked around the world, one might reasonably conclude that different groups should be separated, not coerced into proximity. Note that most of the internal violence that afflicts nations occurs between ethnic, racial, and religious groups – not between rich and poor, between those who bowl and those who golf, or between capitalists and socialists. Would it not make sense, when possible, to separate disparate populations?

In the United States, serious violence – riots, burning of cities, not to mention a heavy (and carefully disguised) element of interracial targeting in crime – takes place along the black/white/Latino fault lines, with occasional black/Jewish fighting in New York. Again, race, religion, ethnicity. Different kinds of people don’t get along. Why do we not recognize this?

The pattern is universal. In France, horrified fluttering recently arose when Jean-Marie Le Pen, a very anti-immigration sort of fellow, got 17% of the vote in presidential elections. How surprised should we be? France has some five million North African Mohammedans. Antagonism is predictable. When the French were in North Africa, the North Africans didn’t like it. Now that the North Africans are in France, the French don’t like it. Is there a pattern here?

Tension is high in Germany between Germans and Turks. In India, Mussulmans and Hindus riot bloodily. In Ceylon, Tamils and Sinhalese; in Iraq, Kurds and Iraqis; in Ireland, Protestants and Catholics, in Yugoslavia…in Burundi…. Canadians and Quebecois are not killing each other, but they think about it.

Given that the mixing of disparate peoples leads with remarkable consistency to trouble, and that the price of the trouble can be high, might it not be reasonable to take this into account when making policy? Might it not be wiser to permit, or even to encourage, people to live with their own? In particular, might it not be desirable to discourage immigration from anywhere to anywhere instead of encouraging it in the name of fuzz-headed adolescent enthusiasm, and thus preparing the way for conflagration?

For some it is too late. The United States has lost control of its borders and lacks the political will to do…well, anything. We amount to a dead whale decaying on the beach of civilization. Other countries may yet have time.

We are, of course, unendingly told that to favor separation is to be racist, hateful, and reactionary. It is always easier to call one’s questioners names than to answer their questions. But…need one be a racist to favor a comfortable distancing? Or is to do so just cultural good manners and wise politics?

Originally, racism meant a belief that one race was inferior to another, usually one’s own. The street definition is a dislike of another because of his race.

I do not regard myself as racially superior to, say, the Japanese. I certainly don’t dislike them for neglecting to be white. I’ve spent time in the Japanese hinterland, crawled the mountains, eaten in remote noodle stands. I like the culture and the people. Passing through Tokyo last week, I reflected (as always) at their superior efficiency and civility. I have no racist notions, by either definition, of the Japanese.

But do I think we should encourage heavy immigration of Japanese (assuming they wanted to come), or they of Americans? No. A very bad idea. Antagonism would result. The differences are too great.

It works this way. Suppose that you are a considerate traveler, American, and go to a foreign town – pick your country -- unaccustomed to outsiders. The likelihood is that you will be treated with courtesy and some degree of curiosity. Should you attempt to learn the language and take an apartment, the people will be flattered by the former and unconcerned by the latter.

Should other Americans come (or Germans, or Chinese), the locals will be unconcerned – at first. The early arrivals will per force adapt to the local culture However, as the numbers reach a certain point, visitors will begin to be seen as invaders. They will cluster together, come to constitute an alien enclave and then, without intending it, to impose themselves on the natives. The ways of the immigrants will inevitably conflict with the ways of the natives.

As an example, American are noisier than most Orientals, prefer informal camaraderie to formal courtesy, and have different notions of proper manners in public. Behavior that is informal and friendly in one society is oafish in another. It isn’t a question of right or wrong, but of expectations.

Soon interests will diverge, hostility appear, incidents occur, and retaliation follow. Us-agin-them thinking is natural to people.

Note that in the United States, when blacks move into white neighborhoods, nothing happens – at first. When the proportion of blacks reaches a certain point – thirty percent is a figure I’ve often seen – the remaining whites flee. The same happens in reverse. When white gentrifiers move into the black city, they clump together. When they become conspicuous by their plenitude, resentment arises among the black population.

By contrast, when groups have their own territory and do not too much come into contact, feelings improve. Neither side feels in danger of being dominated by the other. Thus homogeneous countries tend to be happier countries.

All of this is obvious. And yet we follow policies sure to cause unending trouble, certainly cultural suicide, perhaps catastrophe, because of bullheaded insistence that things be as we wish, not as they are. The spirit of Marxism is much in evidence here – the view that people are amorphous, anonymous, barely sentient putty to be shaped by soulless theoreticians. (Can there be a more contemptuous word for humanity than “the masses”?) For all of this, I think, we will pay a price.[/url]

He is extremely insightful. I can appreciate his thoughts, as it is so true, no matter how much we try to force ourselves to want to live with large populations of immigants from another country, in this case illegally, it is disastrous.

I personally want to be surrounded by my culture, my type of music (heck even if its country I can put up with it!!), and people speaking my language. More so, when they are the ones initiating the hostilities, then it becomes an issue of "who the he$$ do you think you are", by most Americans.

I agree AmericanElizabeth.
America has enough of its own social issues to deal with. We don't need the issues of another country plaguing us as well.
In this case... it just happens that the majority of illegals are coming here with Vicente Fox's blessings.