Tag: immigration

How does this sort of thing benefit the USA in any way? Why is this woman, much less her family, permitted to enter the US at all?

Ms Valles, 21, fled Mexico in fear of her life, hustling her parents, sisters, husband and one-year-old son into a 4 x 4 vehicle and hurtling across the border to seek asylum in the United States. They left just in time. That night a squad of hit men arrived at their small bungalow and ransacked the rooms.

“I would like to go back home,” she said. “But if I hadn’t left my country I wouldn’t be alive now.”

In spite of her diminutive size and sweet, girlish manner, Ms Valles had some powerful and vicious enemies. The criminology graduate was appointed chief of police in the small town of Praxedis G Guerrero, 50 miles east of Ciudad Juarez and a few miles from the US border.

In other words, because one liberal female idiot is incredibly stupid, the USA is expected to financially support an entire family of Mexicans dumb enough to think that the drug cartels were going to be impressed by a young criminology graduate riding herd on them. How does this make any sense at all?

And how long will it be before the cartels simply start striking across the border?

You really have to be remarkably stupid to come out in rabid support of immigration when unemployment rates are effectively at 15.5 percent:

During Thursday night’s Republican presidential debate, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum all took shots at Rick Perry’s record on illegal immigration. Bachmann said that Texas’s law allowing in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants acted like a “magnet” for illegal immigrants. Perry’s response was forceful and personal. “I don’t think you have a heart,” Perry told his critics.

“If you say that we should not educate children who come into our state for no other reason than that they’ve been brought their through no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart,” Perry said. “We need to be educating these children because they will become a drag on our society. I think that’s what Texans wanted to do. Out of 181 members of the Texas legislature when this issue came up [there were] only four dissenting votes. This was a state issue. Texas voted on it. And I still support it today.”

Texans don’t need to be educating Mexican children, they need to be sending them back to Mexico. This is simply an astonishing statement coming as it does on the heels of the report that 80 percent of the new jobs created in Texas over the last decade went to immigrants rather than Americans.

It’s clear that neither party has any desire to represent the interest of Americans. The Democrats are the anti-American, pro-Wall Street party while the Republicans are the pro-corporation, pro-Wall Street party. In either case, the interests of Americans are simply ignored, when they’re not being actively attacked. And it goes without saying that neither of them is going to do a damn thing about the ongoing economic catastrophe except to try to keep the banks afloat, both here and in Europe.

The New York Times “symposium” called “Will the Norway Massacre Deflate Europe’s Right Wing? features nine contributors, none of whom see fit to depart from the very pro-immigration multiculturalism that was the obvious causal factor behind the recent Norwegian killings. This is a typical example of the “insight” on offer.

Far right parties throughout Europe draw upon two distinct constituencies. The first is a core of hardline racist bigots — many of these parties, like the British National Party and the Sweden Democrats emerged out of the neo-fascist swamp and some still live there. The bigots, however, have been joined by a swathe of new supporters whose hostility toward immigrants, minorities and Muslims is shaped less by old-fashioned racism than by a newfangled sense of fear and insecurity. Many have traditionally supported social democratic parties but feel abandoned by organizations that have largely cut links with their working class constituencies. Polls have shown that, even more than the rest of the population, such supporters appear dissatisfied with their lives, anxious about the future and distrustful of any authority figure.

There is little that can be done to sway the opinions of the hardline racists. We need, however, politically to engage with the wider support that now surrounds far right organizations. This does not mean pandering to their prejudices. It means, to the contrary, challenging those prejudices openly and robustly. It means, for instance, challenging the idea that immigration is responsible for the lack of jobs and housing, or that lower immigration would mean a lower crime rate, or that Western societies are becoming “Islamized.”

That sounds like a promising approach. Combat prejudices which are founded on observation and experience by challenging reality. It is both self- and empirically evident that immigration reduces the amount of jobs available as well as the wages paid for them, that immigration drives up housing costs and reduces the housing stock available to the native population, and that immigrants from nations with higher crime rates tend to increase the crime rate. And it is both obvious and verifiable that entire sections of Western societies are becoming “Islamized” and “Hispanicized”.

The media is uniformly convinced that the Norwegian killings are going to harm the political prospects of the anti-immigration, anti-Islamic European Right. But they are completely wrong. More of the indoctrination and exposure to diversity to which Anders Breivik was subjected for his entire life obviously will not prevent any future actions, indeed, they will ensure them. Therefore, it is the political parties that are capable of taking steps to reduce the likelihood of similar attacks in the future are the ones that will benefit from the natural desire of the various electorates to avoid them.

As a general rule, people don’t hate those they don’t know, have never met, and with whom they are not forced to associate. Exposure to other groups does not foster tolerance, but hatred. Few Minnesotans had any opinion about Somalis twenty years ago. Now, many Minnesotans despise them. Multiculturalism and mass immigration is nothing more than a recipe for separatist intra-societal war.

It is totally illogical for the global media and the European Left to claim that an “atmosphere of opinion” was capable of influencing Breivik while they ignore the much larger influence of actual environmental experience. After all, what is more likely to radicalize an individual, reading demographic statistics and editorials or visiting your sister in the hospital after she was raped by a member of the vibrant community?

Kenan Malik wrote: “The question many Europeans are asking is “How can we stop the far right?” The question they should be asking is “How can we challenge anti-immigrant and anti-Islamic sentiment?””

The answer should be completely obvious. Send the immigrants back to their native countries. Anti-immigrant and anti-Islamic sentiment will be reduced to the extent that the immigrant population is. Die Gedanken sind frei, but eventually they do have to deal with the brick wall of Wirklichkeit.

Courtesy of a half second-generation immigrant speaking with The National Council of The Race:

After running through his talking points on the debt negotiations, Obama turned his attention to a subject just as thorny: immigration reform. Acknowledging that some civil rights activists have criticized his administration for deporting 1 million undocumented residents, Obama said: “I share your concerns; I understand them. We are responding. We are enforcing flawed laws in the most humane way possible.”

With a nod toward the deadlocked debt talks, he added: “Some want me to bypass Congress and change laws on my own.”

The audience began chanting “Yes, you can!” a play off the president’s 2008 campaign slogan.

Note that these are the very Hispanics that Karl Rove and George W. Bush were sure would vote Republican because they’re so Catholic and traditional. How utterly astonishing that the magic of a geographic relocation has not caused these Mexican, South and Central American immigrants to suddenly develop a due respect for the concepts of limited government and the separation of powers developed by English Protestants two centuries ago!

Mr. Harris weighs in with what some will likely consider to be a surprising, (and disappointing), conclusion. But it speaks well for his integrity and actually approaches an intelligent response. It also explains why the “Christian fundamentalist” theme is rapidly disappearing from the media:

It has been widely reported that Breivik is a “Christian fundamentalist.” Having read parts of his 1500-page manifesto (2083: A European Declaration of Independence), I must say that I have my doubts…. As I have only read parts of this document, I cannot say whether signs of a deeper religious motive appear elsewhere in it. Nevertheless, the above passages would seem to undermine any claim that Breivik is a Christian fundamentalist in the usual sense. What cannot be doubted, however, is that Breivik’s explicit goal was to punish European liberals for their timidity in the face of Islam.

I have written a fair amount about the threat that Islam poses to open societies, but I am happy to say that Breivik appears never to have heard of me. He has, however, digested the opinions of many writers who share my general concerns—Theodore Dalrymple, Robert D. Kaplan, Lee Harris, Ibn Warraq, Bernard Lewis, Andrew Bostom, Robert Spencer, Walid Shoebat, Daniel Pipes, Bat Ye’or, Mark Steyn, Samuel Huntington, et al. He even singles out my friend and colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali for special praise, repeatedly quoting a blogger who thinks she deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. With a friend like Breivik, one will never want for enemies.

One can only hope that the horror and outrage provoked by Breivik’s behavior will temper the growing enthusiasm for right-wing, racist nationalism in Europe. However, one now fears the swing of another pendulum: We are bound to hear a lot of deluded talk about the dangers of “Islamophobia” and about the need to address the threat of “terrorism” in purely generic terms.

First, it’s quite clear that Breivik was a Christian in the sense of Christendom, not Jesus Christ. As The Perfect Aryan Male, who is a lawyer occasionally required to do work with Saudi visas, explained it, when you go to Saudi Arabia you have to choose between checking “Christian” or “Muslim” on your application. The Saudis couldn’t care less about personal beliefs, your self-identification, or if you pretend to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, they simply want to know if you are a member of the Umma or the Dar al-Harb.

Second, Harris has recognized what so many people seem to find inexplicable. Breivik targeted the future politicians of the Labour Youth because the quislings of the Labour Party are responsible for Norway’s open borders and the subsequent Islamic immigration. While Breivik may or may not have been a bigot, it is clear that his murderous attack was not a bigoted act, but rather, an explicitly political one. This is something he addresses directly in the manifesto when he writes about how it is not the wild animals who are to blame for entering the zoo, but the zookeepers who hold the gates open and permit them to enter.

(That being said, given the pictures of the Labour Youth that have been released, it wouldn’t be surprising if a significant percentage of the victims were not, in fact, ethnic Norwegians.)

Third, I believe Harris is incorrect with regards to his analysis of the probable consequences. Contra the blithe assumptions of the media, I suspect that Breivik’s mass murder will tend to increase the enthusiasm for nationalism on both the European Right and Left because it has increased and underlined what were already the extraordinarily heavy costs being imposed upon European societies by the multiculturalists and immigration enthusiasts within it. As Harris notes, many people, of various creeds, already harbor serious concerns about the incompatibility of Islam and secular society.

There are national elections approaching in Switzerland and France. We should be able to determine if Breivik will have any discernable effect upon the political situation by seeing if the anti-immigrant, anti-Islam People’s Party (CH) and National Front (FR) perform better or worse than they did in the previous elections.

Of course, as Kevin Williamson noted, it is self-evident that Breivik is a lunatic of the sort defined by Umberto Eco in Foucault’s Pendulum.

A lunatic is easily recognized. He is a moron who doesn’t know the ropes. The moron proves his thesis; he has a logic, however twisted it may be. The lunatic, on the other hand, doesn’t concern himself at all with logic; he works by short circuits. For him, everything proves everything else. The lunatic is all idée fixe, and whatever he comes across confirms his lunacy. You can tell him by the liberties he takes with common sense, by his flashes of inspiration, and by the fact that sooner or later he brings up the Templars.