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?
1 comment:
Amnesty for illegal immigrants in the United States, will cost taxpayers more than the Liberals will admit? The majority who have no papers are paid under the proverbial table, by parasite employers. Those who are using fraudulent or bogus Social Security Numbers, do pay Federal taxes. A great example of the pathway illegal aliens have fraudulently, exploited free money is the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). In his book financial analyst and economist Edwin Rubinstein. He states that (EITC) is the largest anti-poverty program in the United States -- and the most illegal-immigrant friendly. In 2007, more than 23 million households received more than $47 billion in the EITC payments. Much of the so-called "tax relief" goes to people who never paid a cent in taxes, and may have already defrauded the government of huge sums each year. EITC has become yet another means of depriving hard-working Americans of their own resources. It robs some to give to others. The EITC is the most accessible of the major entitlement programs and used by more people than food stamps and welfare (TANF)* combined the author admits.
The open border factions, including the payed-off politicians will offer you nothing but propaganda, to stifle any truth. The momentum is building to push for anther AMNESTY. Not only will taxpayers be carrying the out-of-shadows new immigrants, because most have only a 7th grade education and will not find work--while 10 million US workers are jobless. Billions of dollars sent back to other countries. Not forgetting the sponsoring of immediate family members, who will be even a larger burden of American taxpayers. Then their are millions more, impoverished, uneducated expecting for a 3rd AMNESTY to rush the undermanned border. Anti-Illegal immigrant advocates believe that killing E-Verify, is to be used in a compromise to promote Sen. Harry Reid, Speaker Pelosi Immigration reform? Reid's Nevada has one of the largest populations of illegal immigrants. Read undisclosed facts at: VDARE, FAIRUS, JUDICIALWATCH, NUMBERSUSA, AMERICANPATROL, CAPSWEB.ALIPAC.
Post a Comment