Author Topic: Pro-illegal activity groups behind criticism of New AZ Immigration Law  (Read 1369 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
I mean, why not have just as asanine a title thread as the other.  Right?
----------------------------------------------

As I write, I have my papers on me ? and not just because I'm in Arizona. I'm an immigrant, and it is a condition of my admission to this great land that I carry documentary proof of my residency status with me at all times and be prepared to produce it to law enforcement officials, whether on a business trip to Tucson or taking a stroll in the woods back at my pad in New Hampshire.

Who would impose such an outrageous Nazi fascist discriminatory law?

But don't let the fine print of the New Deal prevent you from going into full-scale meltdown. "Boycott Arizona-stan!" urges MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, surely a trifle Islamophobically: What has some blameless Central Asian basket case done to deserve being compared with a hellhole like Phoenix?

Boycott Arizona Iced Tea, jests Travis Nichols of Chicago. It is "the drink of fascists." Just as regular tea is the drink of racists, according to Newsweek's in-depth and apparently nonsatirical poll analysis of anti-Obama protests. At San Francisco's City Hall, where bottled water is banned as the drink of climate denialists, Mayor Gavin Newsom is boycotting for real: All official visits to Arizona have been canceled indefinitely. You couldn't get sanctions like these imposed at the U.N. Security Council, but then, unlike Arizona, Iran is not a universally reviled pariah.

Will a full-scale economic embargo devastate the Copper State? Who knows? It's not clear to me what San Francisco imports from Arizona. Chaps? But, like the bottled water ban, it sends a strong signal that this kind of hate will not be tolerated.

The same day that Mayor Newsom took his bold stand, I saw a phalanx of police officers doing the full Robocop ? black body armor, helmets and visors ? as they marched down the street. Naturally I assumed they were Arizona State Troopers performing a routine traffic stop. In fact, they were the police department of Quincy, Ill, facing down a group of genial Tea Party grandmas in sun hats and American-flag T-shirts.

If I were a member of the Quincy PD I'd wear a full-face visor, too, because I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror.

And yet the coastal frothers denouncing Arizona as the Third Reich or, at best, apartheid South Africa, seem entirely relaxed about the ludicrous and embarrassing sight of peaceful protesters being menaced by camp storm troopers from either a dinner-theatre space-opera or uniforms night at Mayor Newsom's re-election campaign.

Meanwhile, in Britain, the flailing Prime Minister Gordon Brown was on the stump and met an actual voter, one Gillian Duffy. Alas, she made the mistake of expressing very mild misgivings about immigration. And not the black, brown and yellow kind, but only the faintly swarthy Balkan blokes from Eastern Europe. And, actually, all she said about immigrants was that "you can't say anything about the immigrants." The Prime Minister got back in his limo, forgetting that he was still miked. "That was a disaster," he sighed. "Should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? She's just this sort of bigoted woman."

After the broadcast of his "gaffe" and the sight of Brown slumped with his head in his hands as a radio interviewer replayed the remarks to him, most of the initial commentary focused on what the incident revealed about Gordon Brown's character. But the larger point is what it says about the governing elites and their own voters. Mrs. Duffy is a lifelong supporter of Mr. Brown's Labor Party, but she represents the old working class the party no longer has much time for.

Gillian Duffy lives in the world Gordon Brown has created. He, on the other hand, gets into his chauffeured limo and is whisked far away from it.

That's Arizona. To the coastal commentariat, "undocumented immigrants" are the people who mow your lawn while you're at work and clean your office while you're at home. (That, for the benefit of Linda Greenhouse, is the real apartheid: the acceptance of a permanent "undocumented" servant class by far too many "documented" Americans who assuage their guilt by pathetic sentimentalization of immigration.) But in border states illegal immigration is life and death. I spoke to a lady this week who has a camp of illegals on the edge of her land: She lies awake at night, fearful for her children and alert to strange noises in the yard.

President Obama, shooting from his lip, attacked the new law as an offense against "fairness." Where's the fairness for this woman's family? Because her home is in Arizona rather than Hyde Park, Chicago, she's just supposed to get used to living under siege? Like Gillian Duffy in northern England, this lady has to live there, while the political class that created this situation climbs back into the limo and gets driven far away.

Almost every claim made for the benefits of mass immigration is false. Europeans were told that they needed immigrants to help prop up their otherwise unaffordable social entitlements: In reality, Turks in Germany have three times the rate of welfare dependency as ethnic Germans, and their average retirement age is 50. Two-thirds of French imams are on the dole.

But wait: what about the broader economic benefits? The World Bank calculated that if rich countries increased their workforce by a mere 3 percent through admitting an extra 14 million people from developing countries, it would benefit the populations of those rich countries by $139 billion. Wow!

As Christopher Caldwell points out in his book "Reflections On The Revolution In Europe": "The aggregate gross domestic product of the advanced economies for the year 2008 is estimated by the International Monetary Fund at close to $40 trillion." So an extra $139 billion works out to a spectacular 0.0035. "Sacrificing 0.0035 of your economy would be a pittance to pay for starting to get your country back." A dependence on mass immigration is not a goldmine nor an opportunity to flaunt your multicultural bona fides, but a structural weakness, and should be addressed as such.

The majority of Arizona's schoolchildren are already Hispanic. So, even if you sealed the border today, the state's future is as an Hispanic society: That's a given. Maybe it'll all work out swell. The citizenry never voted for it, but they got it anyway. Because all the smart guys in the limos bemoaning the bigots knew what was best for them.


Commentary




"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0

Almost every claim made for the benefits of mass immigration is false.


Yeah, maybe if we had severely limited immigration for our whole history starting 1776, we would be better off. Just think what we might have become if we had been able to keep out the Irish and the Chinese and the poor trash of Europe. Yeah, I guess if we had done that the United States would be a military and economic world superpower today... oh, wait...


The majority of Arizona's schoolchildren are already Hispanic. So, even if you sealed the border today, the state's future is as an Hispanic society: That's a given. Maybe it'll all work out swell. The citizenry never voted for it, but they got it anyway. Because all the smart guys in the limos bemoaning the bigots knew what was best for them.


Never voted for it? I'm pretty sure the citizenry here in South Carolina never voted on all those New Yorkers who have moved down here. I am fairly certain there was no vote some years back about letting my family move here from south Louisiana. I'm pretty sure the citizenry didn't vote about it when my Irish and German ancestors came to the U.S. I wonder if the folks in New Hampshire voted to allow Canadian Mark Steyn and his family to live there. I wonder if that they didn't means they don't care about immigration law and the authority of the government to control its borders? Hm?
« Last Edit: May 04, 2010, 10:24:35 AM by Universe Prince »
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0


Yeah, maybe if we had severely limited immigration for our whole history starting 1776, we would be better off. Just think what we might have become if we had been able to keep out the Irish and the Chinese and the poor trash of Europe. Yeah, I guess if we had done that the United States would be a military and economic world superpower today... oh, wait...

Well , If that Italian Catholic Cristobal Colon and his Spanish crew had been denyed entry we would all be Indians , except of course no one would have named us erroniously as "Indian".





Never voted for it? I'm pretty sure the citizenry here in South Carolina never voted on all those New Yorkers who have moved down here. I am fairly certain there was no vote some years back about letting my family move here from south Louisiana. I'm pretty sure the citizenry didn't vote about it when my Irish and German ancestors came to the U.S. I wonder if the folks in New Hampshire voted to allow Canadian Mark Steyn and his family to live there. I wonder if that they didn't means they don't care about immigration law and the authority of the government to control its borders? Hm?


    Well after that referendum of 1863 failed so badly , yes.

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11149
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0

Well after that referendum of 1863 failed so badly , yes.


I freely confess, I don't know to which referendum you are referring.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Almost every claim made for the benefits of mass immigration is false.

Yeah, maybe if we had severely limited immigration for our whole history starting 1776, we would be better off.

Yea, and maybe if our population existed in a vacuum, where when 1 person leaves, 1 person then can enter, we could simply open up immigration to every and all who wish to enter



Just think what we might have become if we had been able to keep out the Irish and the Chinese and the poor trash of Europe. Yeah, I guess if we had done that the United States would be a military and economic world superpower today... oh, wait...

Starting to reach for the goal of hysterical commentary, Prince?  Very unbecoming of such royalty


The majority of Arizona's schoolchildren are already Hispanic. So, even if you sealed the border today, the state's future is as an Hispanic society: That's a given. Maybe it'll all work out swell. The citizenry never voted for it, but they got it anyway. Because all the smart guys in the limos bemoaning the bigots knew what was best for them.

Never voted for it? I'm pretty sure the citizenry here in South Carolina never voted on all those New Yorkers who have moved down here. I am fairly certain there was no vote some years back about letting my family move here from south Louisiana. I'm pretty sure the citizenry didn't vote about it when my Irish and German ancestors came to the U.S. I wonder if the folks in New Hampshire voted to allow Canadian Mark Steyn and his family to live there. I wonder if that they didn't means they don't care about immigration law and the authority of the government to control its borders? Hm?

70% of the state supports the AZ law Prince.  Last check, majority of the country also supports the AZ law.  Read the law.....oh wait
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0

Yea, and maybe if our population existed in a vacuum, where when 1 person leaves, 1 person then can enter, we could simply open up immigration to every and all who wish to enter


I must really be tired. You're making even less sense than usual.


Starting to reach for the goal of hysterical commentary, Prince?  Very unbecoming of such royalty


No, Sirs. It's called sarcasm. Nothing hysterical about it. I'm starting to think you need to start spending a lot of time at dictionary.com


70% of the state supports the AZ law Prince.  Last check, majority of the country also supports the AZ law.  Read the law.....oh wait


That has nothing to do with what I said. Maybe you're the one who's really tired.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Yea, and maybe if our population existed in a vacuum, where when 1 person leaves, 1 person then can enter, we could simply open up immigration to every and all who wish to enter

I must really be tired. You're making even less sense than usual.

oy.  You can't connect my polar equivalent to your extreme??  And I'm the one supposed to be tired?


Starting to reach for the goal of hysterical commentary, Prince?  Very unbecoming of such royalty

No, Sirs. It's called sarcasm. Nothing hysterical about it.

effective sarcasm has a ring of reality and truth to that you're trying to be sarcastic about.  Usually you're pretty good at it.  Tonight, not so much, I'm afraid


70% of the state supports the AZ law Prince.  Last check, majority of the country also supports the AZ law.  Read the law.....oh wait

That has nothing to do with what I said. Maybe you're the one who's really tired.

Naaa, just the one a tad more up to speed on AZ law and who currently supports it
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0

Well after that referendum of 1863 failed so badly , yes.


I freely confess, I don't know to which referendum you are referring.


I am sorry , I got the year wrong.

1861

Feb 18th - Confederate President Jefferson Davis inaugurated at Montgomery Ala