Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The New York Times' love affair with Mexican peasants
Today the New York Times editorial board ran yet another screed demanding citizenship for illegal aliens. You can read it here (free registration required). The Times ran 165 comments, most strongly opposing the editorial (including nearly all the comments that garnered high reader ratings). Mine got the 17th highest rating. Here it is:
What this editorial didn't say is more interesting than what it did. Basically it was concrete about what we should do for Mexican citizens who are here illegally, but fuzzy about what we should do to keep more from coming.
That's in line with the last "comprehensive immigration reform" passed by Congress in 1986, which combined real amnesty with fake enforcement.
And of course this editorial doesn't mention what happened as a result of the 1986 amnesty: a huge wave of undereducated, unskilled humanity pouring over the border once we'd erected a giant green light over it.
What's the current unemployment rate for undereducated, unskilled Americans? 20%? 30% 40%? Yet it's OK to spit in their faces, I guess. And why not? None of them are on the NYT Editorial Board, nor are they neighbors of the Board's members. Out of sight, out of mind, huh?
The Board could have taken this opportunity to endorse e-Verify, which is quick, simple, accurate, & can actually prevent companies from exploiting illegal immigrant labor to drive down everyone's wages & bust unions.
It could have admitted that the "12 million" illegal alien head count is speculative, since America lacks any kind of universal ID system--the only way we could really tell who's here & how many. The actual number of illegals in this country could be double or triple that. No one knows.
And if the Board ever ventured west of the Hudson to California where I've lived all my life, they might discover that the character of our state has been radically Latinized since the 1986 amnesty. The most-watched TV station in Los Angeles only broadcasts in Spanish, for example.
I mention this not because I hate Mexican culture--in fact I speak Spanish & have traveled in the Mexican countryside extensively. I mention it because I actually like my own American culture. Now the Board, in other editorials, has condemned Americans who like American culture, calling us nativists, as if we're knuckle-dragging xenophobes who break out in hives if we espy a foreigner. Well if so, I've got plenty of company, since at least 2/3 of Americans feel the same way I do.
And since so many do, you'd think the Board would try to address our complaints about the Southwest being turned into an American Quebec. It would endorse e-Verify, Universal ID, & other practical measures to regain control of our demographics. But instead it speaks about the 2/3 with contempt, as it did again in this editorial.
Lastly, the Board didn't mention that in 1940 Mexico had a population of 20 million, which exploded into over 100 million in 2000--vastly more than the Mexican economy can absorb. This is our fault how?
And if we are to admit millions upon millions of immigrants every year, why are we obligated to have most of them Mexican peasants? Why not people of every race & nation who have skills we actually need? Why Mexicans? Darfurians are in far worse straits. Chinese engineers are more useful. What obligation or need requires us to allow Mexico's oligarchs to outsource their home-made population crisis to America?
Not to mention how people trying to immigrate legally will feel once our government lets 10-30 million Mexicans jump the queue.
How did the New York Times Editorial Board's sympathies become limited to just one foreign country's population? In the words of Marvin Gaye, ain't that peculiar?
Posted by Ehkzu at 12:15 AM