Letter to the editor: President's immigration story is in no way reality

Well?

Why not just let everyone in the world immigrate here if they want to then, Sonechka?

Stanley, just because some of the founding fathers were xenophobic and racist doesn't grant us the right to be. They also let slavery stay legal and denied women the right to vote.
I've never really seen an "American" culture. When I lived back east, I was exposed to Jewish, Italian, Puerto Rican, Cuban, etc culture. Out here, it's more rural. On the west coast, it's more Hispanic and Asian. What, exactly, would you name as tenets of "American" culture? 1950's white middle-class culture (which is kind of my nightmare, btw)?
The other thing I don't understand is why people here in Montana are so against immigration and amnesty. Honestly, when have you ever been affected by immigrants? I certainly never have had my life affected at all because of immigrants, legal or illegal. Never had trouble getting a job, didn't have trouble getting money for school, never was discriminated against for being white. I can't say, with good conscience that Hispanic immigrants should be kept out when most of my family (save for the little bit of American Indian in me) immigrated here. I wouldn't be here if it weren't for immigration, and I'm guessing neither would you; how can you justify saying that it was okay for your immigrants to come here and take jobs but it's not okay for Hispanics?
I don't necessarily agree with your definition of a "country." Maybe that's what happened in the past but I'm optimistic about improving in the future. We don't have to repeat mistakes; we can learn from them and avoid them instead.

Mtcreels, your lack of a response to my rebuttal of your personal attack is quite revealing.

I disagree, Tom. I don't think it's wise to wait to see if we get lucky and don't have big problems with illegals in the future. It's already happened, and is happening, in so many other states. Can we not learn and act upon that historical knowledge?

Yes. This is a fed issue. But they're not attacking the sources of the problem. States are now fully able to dry up jobs for illegals.

Why should we wait and see?

I'm not agreeing with your numbers Stanley.

Question: if we removed every illegal immigrant from Montana on Dec 31, 2011, how much would Montana's spending drop for 2012? Would it be 30 million like your study says?

Nope. Misinformation comes from the left AND the right.

Our state politicians are just using this issue to rally their base. This is an issue alright, but it's a fed issue.

To Sonechka:

I'll grant that you're trying, but you may be hopelessly steeped in mindless cliches, slogans, and misinformation, and thus impervious. Nevertheless, a few final points:

A. If we keep illegal aliens from getting jobs (teach yourself about E-Verify) and deny them public benefits, and if general encounters with law enforcement lead to detection and then removal, illegal aliens will be leaving on their own, in large numbers. It's called "attrition by enforcement," and it's worked whenever it's been tried, since people do respond to incentives. If you can't get a job and/or public benefits and you'll get deported if you're caught in a traffic stop, it's better to leave at a time of one's own choosing than waiting until suddenly detected and having your life thrown topsy-turvy. SO ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS SYSTEMATICALLY AND PERSISTENTLY ENFORCE THE LAW. To those who claim that enforcement doesn't work, the answer is that it's never really been tried in the proper combination of "seriously" and "long-term."

B. This wasn't a country and it wasn't what anyone means by "America" until the Europeans came and developed it. The people who were already in the Western Hemisphere (themselves migrants from Asia, since they didn't sprout from the ground here) referred to the two joined "continents" here as "Turtle Island." So you might call them "Turtle Islanders," but they certainly weren't "Americans."

C. Of COURSE there's an "American culture"! It's the polity that the Founders created, built upon their own heritage as subjects of England. They enhanced what they already had (the rule of law, right to jury trials, the enforcement of contracts, ...), with the ideas and ideals in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and, thus, made something unique in the world. Which is why so much of the world has wanted to move here.

D. The Founders were, at most, ambivalent about immigration. And if you read John Jay's Federalist #2, you'll find this passage: "With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence."

There were no "melting pot" ideas in what Jay wrote. The "melting pot" phrase was coined around 1900 by Israel Zangwill, as a description of how America of the time was adjusting, sort of, to the huge, unpopular immigration of that era. Nowadays, since the proverbial "melting" mostly isn't happening, people talk about America as a "salad bowl," a sure tip-off that immigrants aren't assimilating.

E. The "misapplication of the 14th Amendment" refers to the (mistaken, but currently automatic) granting of citizenship at birth to children born here to illegal aliens. It doesn't refer to birthright citizenship for children born here to legal permanent residents. As someone else wrote, memorably, "Shouldn't becoming an American citizen require more than your mother sneaking past the U.S. Border Patrol?"

F. At root, Sonechka seems resistant to the idea of what a country is. But if a country can't or doesn't control who enters, then it's not really a country, it's enroute to being a bunch of warring tribes scrapping over a piece of land. The American Indians weren't strong enough or united enough (being a bunch of often-warring tribes, themselves) to long forestall the appropriation of the continent by Europeans. But that's just the repeated story of human history -- people live on some land until a stronger group comes along and throws them off. It's up to today's Americans to protect our country so it doesn't, uselessly, become just another part of the Third World. Consistently with this, THERE IS NO RIGHT TO IMMIGRATE TO THE UNITED STATES.

We don't have to deport 11+ million people. Deny them jobs and services, and they'll leave.

Stanley, the "flood" of immigrants has already happened. They're already here. And there's no way we're going to have the resources and manpower to deport 11+ million people. We could just let them keep working under the table and pretend they're not here, or we could grant them amnesty and have them pay taxes. The whole world is overpopulated; building a fence isn't going to fix that.
"1. The flood of immigrants drives wages and living conditions in our central cities toward those of the Third World." Money-hungry corporations drive wages, and consequently, living conditions down by refusing to pay livable wages. Or just refusing to set up shop in America altogether and choosing to pay people in India 10 cents a day to do the work.
"5. American civic culture frays as each ethnic group establishes its own grievance lobby and pushes for preferences." What "American culture?" Aren't we a melting pot, made up of all different cultures? Or did you mean white, Anglo-Saxon culture as "American" culture?
We can't possibly claim to have a right to this land over hispanic immigrants, as almost all of us are the descendants of immigrants ourselves. "Misapplication of the 14th Amendment?" So if my great grandmother immigrated here from Eastern Europe, her children should not have been considered citizens? Under that reasoning, no one but Native Americans are true citizens.
Your reasoning is the same that has been used by those against immigration since the start of this country. If we survived mass influxes of immigrants before, we can do it again. This country was founded on immigration; no one has the right to say who is and is not worthy to immigrate here. Will we need to increase our social services? Perhaps. But I think we've needed that for some time now anyway. Your ancestors were immigrants too, judging by your Caucasian name; why should you be a citizen and the children of Hispanic immigrants should not? If anything, most of them have been on this continent far longer than America has been.

To Sonechka:

So your reasoning is that because there's been mass immigration in the American past, it must always be OK going forward. Oh? Even when the U.S. reaches population levels like 600 million or a billion towards the end of this century? In fact, we're overpopulated NOW (with current population of ~310 million), since we're not living sustainably on the land but, instead, depending on a bunch of finite resources that we're exhausting.

Plus, mass immigration in the past was, in fact, very hard on the existing American populations. Here's what Nobel Memorial Prize-winning economic historian Robert Fogel of the University of Chicago wrote about the mid-1800s in urban America:

"The root cause of the depression that engulfed native workers during 1848 – 1855, as during 1840 – 1844, was the high level of immigration, which once again surged upward after 1846, fed by the refugees of the Irish famine and of Continental revolutions. Immigration rose sharply from 1846 to 1854, reaching five times the level of the first half of the 1840s. Once again the migration was heavily concentrated in northern cities. As a consequence, the growth of the labor force in many cities was double or triple the natural rate of labor force growth. So large a rate of increase not only put heavy downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on rents, but greatly outstripped the capacity of local politicians to deal with the mounting problems of public health and crime.... In other words, native-born mechanics and tradesmen suffered one of the most severe economic disasters in American history, rivaling, if not exceeding, the economic blow suffered by urban labor during the Great Depression of the 1930s. "

And here's a list of mass immigration's modern impacts, put together by someone who lived in southern California in our era:

1. The flood of immigrants drives wages and living conditions in our central cities toward those of the Third World.

2. The influx imposes both sprawl and gridlock on our metropolitan areas.

3. Immigrant families needing services overwhelm our schools, taxpayer-funded healthcare facilities, and other public agencies.

4. Those requiring services don’t assimilate and, instead, expect to be served in their native languages.

5. American civic culture frays as each ethnic group establishes its own grievance lobby and pushes for preferences.

6. Illegal aliens bring us fearsome diseases such as tuberculosis (new, drug-resistant strains) and Chagas.

7. Shortages of water and other resources loom, especially in immigration-blitzed California.

Bottom line: The U.S. exists for the benefit of its citizens, just as it says in the Constitution's preamble (" .. and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ..."), and today's immigration harms most of us. So we should end it.

To tommarmot:

The study is absolutely NOT junk. The biggest cost driver is K-12 education of illegal aliens' kids. Some of the kids are themselves illegal aliens, and some are U.S. citizens (through misapplication of the 14th Amendment). You might be tempted to not count the cost of the U.S.-born children (since they're citizens), but the point is that NONE of these kids would be here, with their costs to Montana taxpayers, if the parents weren't here. So they're a cost of illegal immigration.

And these are ANNUAL costs, not lifetime costs. See the executive summary of FAIR's report.

Stanley, I don't understand why people think immigrants to this country are such a negative thing. If they were immigrants from Europe or Asia would you feel differently? We had mass immigration from those places too, you know. But we didn't build a wall around our eastern or western coasts to keep them out. Why not make legal immigration cheaper and easier so that people can come to the self-proclaimed "greatest country in the world" and pursue their own American dream?
But I guess Italian and Irish/Scottish and Eastern European and Asian immigrants have all had to face this type of treatment for a while too. Too bad we can't learn from our mistakes instead of repeating them.

Here's what will work, Tom. Eliminating the jobs magnet.

The U.S. Supreme Court just upheld Arizona's E-Verify law, which will now allow all states to pass such a law.

The next step is to overturn birthright citizenship for the children of two illegal parents.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/27/us/27scotus-text.html?ref=us

Stanley, you're way off on your numbers. Montana does not spend 6000 dollars per year on its illegal immigrant population. That's silly.

Read the methodology of the "researchers" who wrote that study that you cite. the money "spent" on illegal immigrants includes projected funds spent over the life of the children of illegal immigrants. To put it mildly, that's pie in the sky statistics.

The study is junk and does not contradict my point that this is Montana. We don't have an illegal immigration problem here. It's just an emotional issue that is being used to score political points.

If you want to talk federal policy, fine. Let's do that. You know what hasn't worked to stop illegal immigration. What WILL work?

Sonechka asks, "Why are people vehemently against amnesty?"

Geesh, what a question.

OK, here goes. We granted amnesty in 1986. The expectation was that about one million would qualify. It turned out to be 2.7 million, about 30% of whom were glaringly fraudulent (see below). The amnesty was supposed to be accompanied by enforcement against future illegal immigration, both at worksites and the borders. The enforcement never happened, despite the pious promises about this "grand bargain' being a one-time event in American history, never to be repeated because it would solve the problem once and for all.

It involved bad-faith-on-steroids among the cheap-labor-demanders and the ethnic-grievance-hustlers who pushed for the amnesty part.

There have also been six amnesties since 1986, totaling more people than the number legalized in 1986. Heightened enforcement wasn't even promised as bait for perennially gullible citizens with these ones.

Nevertheless, these cumulative amnestoes of seven to eight million illegal aliens, the number of illegal aliens in the country is now at least 10 million. (Some have reason to think it's upward of 25 million.)

I hope that's enough of an answer to Sonechka.

Regarding fraud with the 1986 amnesty:

- There were amnesty applicants who claimed to have worked in agriculture. When INS agents interviewing them asked them to describe the work they'd done, they talked about things like picking strawberries. They'd describe how they would set up their ladders for access to the tops of the strawberry trees. Yet such folks were waved through.

- There was Mahmoud Abouhalima, a Muslim illegal alien from Egypt.who drove taxicabs, badly, in New York City. Somehow, he slipped through as an "agricultural worker" in the 1986 amnesty and was legalized. He went on to help with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Check out his Wikipedia entry: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Abouhalima

Solution: grant amnesty. They get to stay here, the state gets their tax money since they'll have to start paying them if they become citizens. It's a win-win, yet people are still vehemently against it. Why?
I'd like to know how much revenue is lost every year due to citizens not paying taxes...since it seems to happen quite often.

tommarmot essentially re-asks his earlier question, "So does Montana have a problem with illegal immigration?"

The presence of an estimated 5,000 illegal aliens here costs the state budget about $30 million/year. That takes into account the taxes illegal aliens pay (not much). See http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf?docID=4921

$30 million is a trifling amount compared to what illegal aliens cost California (about $20 billion/year), and it's not even a lot compared to the several-billion-dollar Montana state budget. On the other hand, Bozeman's school district is scratching for $1 million to $2 million for the coming school year, because of budget stringencies. Probably that's also true in other of the state's bigger cities. So why spend taxpayer money on benefits for illegal aliens? There's no need for their presence.

(Same in states like California: If they'd been serious all along and enforced the laws, California would be doing fine, since economies adjust as needed. Actually, given California's budget disaster and the $20 billion current net annual drain from illegal aliens, they'd be much better off now if illegal aliens had never set foot there.)

Also consider that about 15% of the cases handled by the U.S. attorney for Montana involve illegal aliens. (In Wyoming, it's one-third in recent years!)

Finally, there's another letter currently posted by the Chronicle that makes an important point: Illegal immigration is something to nip in the bud, not wait to tackle until it becomes a festering, self-sustaining disaster. See www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/article_74fff326-8663-11e0-b12c-001cc4c002e0.html

So does Montana have a problem with iillegal immigration? It doesn't seem like it to me. What's more likely is that this issue of "Immigration sanctuaries" is being raised to "rally the troops." It's a divisive, highly partisan issue that does not have much relevance to our state.

But okay, on a national level, sure, illegal immigration is an issue. If we really wanted to address this problem we could. The problem is that the solutions that would work are unpalatable. Holding employers responsible for hiring illegals would require more government oversight. Who is opposed to that? Requiring all US citizens to have a passport or other form of "Real ID" would go a long way towards addressing this problem but...who wants to do that? Um, nobody.

It's a lot easier to spend a bunch of money building a very long and useless wall, all the while letting both political parties score points with their base.

Oh, and Potera advocates for hurting Americans, I advocate for protecting Americans. Get that straight.

bposters you are not paying attention very well then. I have ripped on Rush many times. He is corporate owned. Just like Hannity. What I find very telling though is that people on the left don't rip on crazies like Maddow and Olberman. Two confirmed leftist nut jobs. Just once I would like to see any lefty on this forum get the same fun enjoyment out of the MSNBC whack jobs as I do. No one with an ounce of common sense can say with a straight face that either Fox News or MSNBC is fair and accurate.

All one has to do is take a look at California to figure out how not to handle immigration.

Why, yes it does, mtcreels. I would say that personal experience is what shapes most people's opinions, wouldn't you?

Hiding from the truth? Not me. I'm not one of those who has been proven to lie on this forum, as you are. Do you think I posted those words without any clue that you would bring them up later? Think again.

Here's more personal experience. I worked in the restaurant industry for a long time, much of it in Vail, Colorado. I've witnessed literally dozens of Mexicans whom I worked with say with their own mouths that this is their land and gringos should go back to Europe and that they shouldn't have to learn English, but gringos should learn Spanish. I used to laugh and agree with them, at first because I thought it was just harmless talk, and later just to keep things polite and to see how they really felt about the subject.

There were times I stuck up for Latin illegals(even after being discriminated against by Latinos as a child in Florida) in Vail in the mid to late 90's, when there were relatively few of them. I mean, they just want to come and work for their families, so what's wrong with that, right? I stopped supporting them when the Vail Valley became inundated with them and the crime they brought. Quite suddenly, rapes, job site thefts, burglaries, and DUI vehicular manslaughters committed by illegals became common in the Vail area when those crimes were VERY rare before.

So, I supported Latin illegals when they were relatively few and harmless, and stopped when their numbers became overwhelming, crime skyrocketed with their numbers, and literally dozens of them told me this was their land and I should leave because I'm white.

I don't like being discriminated against because I'm white. I didn't like it as a child, and I don't like it as an adult. I'm not guilty of anything, so I won't accept blame for what some a-holes in my race have done in the past. It's bad enough to be discriminated against by Americans of other races, but to be so by foreigners who are here illegally and assert that this is their land and whites should leave, is simply over the top.

I do feel bad for all the kind Latin illegals I've known in the past who brought no malice of Americans with them, as all the bad apples are ruining it for them, too.

To finish, I don't think my race is superior to other races and I don't hate anyone just because of their race, as the definition of racism requires. So, by definition, I am not a racist.

Please take your overused, debunked, standard-issue race card somewhere else.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

rfabro, does 'I grew up in Florida in the late 80's and 90's and I learned what racisim is by being hated on for being white' have anything to do with your positions on immigration? Is this why you don't like immigrants, especailly those from Latin America or Mexico? Because people from Latin America and Mexico were mean to you when you were growing up? Guess what? That's racisit. Grow up.
There is no difference between your views on this subject, and say, Potera's views on pot.
You can never hide from the truth. It always finds a way.

I definitely agree that much Obama hate comes from racism. I've heard it with my own ears plenty of times. I'm surely sick of the righties tearing him down for no good reason all the time.

But I found his border speech to be inaccurate and insulting to the more level-headed of us who advocate for secure borders and a halt to the inflow of illegals.

I don't say all right wingers are racist. The degree of which racism pervades the right wings side is significant, I believe, and the earlier comments to this letter is why I said this.

I certainly know right wingers who don't care at all about race, however, the strategy of the Republican party has been, since the 60's, to play on people's racial fears using coded language, to win votes. The fact that many moderates in the Republican party don't stand up to the outrageous statements of, say, Rush as an example, is evidence of their complicity, not necessarily their agreement.

So, they were "colonists" because they didn't join the native Americans, but instead killed them? There were societies here, they didn't join them, but not sure that is the definition of immigration.

bposters, I'm a moderate and about "as centrist as they come". I am against illegal immigration and am certainly not racist.

I consider your view, that just about anybody who is anti-illegal is also racist, a leftist view.

There's a letter from several days later that the Chronicle has posted that seems to answer tommarmot's question about "why is this something for Montana to fuss about?" [I paraphrase Mr. Marmot and assume that by "this" he means "illegal immigration."]

www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/article_74fff326-8663-11e0-b12c-001cc4c002e0.html

That theory about cattle and pox is attributable to Jared Diamond.

Europeans raised cattle, which likely exposed that population to cowpox and conferred some resistance to smallpox. Native americans did not possess domesticated cattle and so had little or no exposure to the pox virus. This theory explains the virulence of the smallpox epidemic amongst native americans much better than the "bathing" notion.

fenske et al nailed the "solution." A while back. If we really want to be serious about ending illegal immigration we should address it at the source. People come for the jobs. Put the onus on employers to use only legal workers and we'll go a long way to ending illegal immigration.

But...
My question is why this is such a big issue in Montana.

Sonechka complains about my use of "Stone Age." It's just a straightforward classification of American Indians' state of affairs at the time of the European arrival: They weren't Bronze Age or Iron Age or anything later than those, but they did have stone tools, so they were Stone Age (which is more technologically advanced than being pre-Stone Age, as were the Australian aborigines when the Europeans arrived there).

If Sonechka wants to attach a value judgment to "Stone Age," that's her option, but what's relevant in the current discussion is that the various American Indian civilizations on the continent before European contact had negligible formative influence on the societies that European settlers created here, so those settlers were, indeed, **settlers**, not "immigrants." The earliest generations of Europeans who came to North America weren't moving to an existing country; they weren't "immigrating" to become members of American Indian societies.

As for Sonechka's bucolic notions about American Indian women's lives, I doubt it. I'll offer here a quote from New York Times writer Richard Bernstein's 1994 book _Dictatorship of Virtue_ which doesn't speak specifically about Indian women but torpedoes the general romanticism. Referring to texts on American history by David Saville Muzzey and Charles Beard, Bernstein wrote:

"Muzzey, however, portrayed the Indians as primitives and savages. In his 1941 revision, he talked of the treatment of the Indians as 'a chapter of dishonor' for white men, but the Indians themselves, he said, 'nowhere advanced beyond the stage of barbarism ... They had some noble qualities, such as dignity, courage, and endurance, but at bottom they were a treacherous, cruel people who inflicted terrible tortures upon their captured enemies.'

"Even the great revisionist historian and liberal hero Charles Beard, writing in the prologue to his _History of the American People_, published in 1918, had to explain why he gave so little space to the North American Indians. 'They are interesting and picturesque, but they made no impression on the civilization of the United States,' he said, showing a tough-mindedness that would be excoriated now."

And the obvious point about smallpox is that it didn't exist in the Americas before Spanish settlers came to the Caribbean and Mexico, so the frequency of baths taken in the Americas before that is irrelevant.

If Sonechka next wants to wax rapturous about the Iroquois Confederation, she should peddle those tales somewhere else.

I love how white supremists are all afraid that another race is going to come in and forcefully take over, when their race is the ONLY race in the history of this country to do such a thing.
And Stanley: "Stone Age civilizations?" Please. Indian women had rights way before Europeans even considered such a thing. They also developed an effective form of birth control way before white people did, and didn't have nearly as many deaths by childbirth. They accepted and sometimes even celebrated homosexuality. And the reason they got smallpox so easily was because it didn't exist in North America. It didn't exist because Indians bathed regularly--Europeans did not. Of course they were not perfect. I'm not suggesting we kick everyone but Native Americans out of the country. But you can't honestly believe that white people have some sort of manifest right to North America and no other race should be allowed to be in the majority.

bposters, I am not a right winger. I am a independent conservative. I don't agree with the President on this issue and it has nothing to do with race. I was in full support of his giving the go ahead to take out Osama and it has nothing to do with race. The leftist whackos love to play the race card when we disagree with our President. When we conservatives agree with someone like Thomas Sole the whacko left has to look for a different card to play. It's to bad people of his own race have to call him Uncle Tom. The race card may have worked for OJ Simpson but even people with low level intelligence have figured out this is a weak argument when you have no facts to offer.

bposters wrote "stanley, the 'colonists' were immigrants. They weren't coming to an uninhabited land, there were people here who were killed in large numbers by the disease the immigrants brought.

"In fact, this country was built on immigration, it was encouraged and the statue of liberty is a testimony to that."

Wrong on both major counts (the part about the lethality of the diseases is OK).

The settlers/colonists didn't join an existing society. They made their own civilization in the mold of the European (primarily Anglo-Saxon) societies they came from. So they weren't "immigrants," as a check of the dictionary definition of "immigrant" will confirm.

(Yes, there were other, Stone-Age civilizations already in the Western Hemisphere, but what the colonists created was separate from those. "Colonist" and "immigrant" are distinct concepts.)

Further, the statue to which you refer is actually named "Liberty Enlightening the World," and it has absolutely nothing to do with immigration. See, for example, the article "She was never about those huddled masses" by Roberto Suro in the Washington Post, at this URL:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070201737_pf.html

bposters, After a second look I do have a dissagreement with your post.

It is wrong for you to automatically assume that "right wingers" are racists and put the burdon of disproving this notion on them. I'll call out bigotry when and where I see it and I am not politically selective about it.

We're not the ones that had Robert "KKK" Byrd representing our party and we don't deserve the assumption of guilt.

not sure I understand, you mean, is it racist to prefer someone because of their race? Your question seems to ask me a question, they say we both agree on that. I'm not even sure I'd call a lot of acts of discrimination actual racism.

Do you mean to prefer someone because of their race? Not sure I'd call that racist either.

Or do you mean, discrimination against whites. I think there are limits to affirmative action, or quotas. Frankly, I am not a fan of affirmative action in this day and age.

When people come from south America to work in the US, they are often coming because they want to better their lives, and their children's lives. I can't fault them for that. I wouldn't call them criminals, though they may break the law.

Want to slow down immigration? Helping Central and South American countries create a more safe environment with a higher quality of living is a great way to make things better for everyone.

bposters,

Thoughtful post, no disagreement here.

One question. Do you believe that it is racist to discriminate in favor of someone because of their race? We both agree that it is racist to discriminate against someone because of their race, but I am not sure how you feel about it the other way around.

It isn't radically left to be annoyed by obvious, public bigotry. My point, independentthinker, is that for right wingers who don't like being associated with racists, they should be more public in calling out people like that.

stanley, the "colonists" were immigrants. They weren't coming to an uninhabited land, there were people here who were killed in large numbers by the disease the immigrants brought.

In fact, this country was built on immigration, it was encouraged and the statue of liberty is a testimony to that.

yeah, the idea that anti racist is anti white is so stupid. But, it does justify the idea that a lot of people who don't like Obama, don't like him because of his race.

When I worked low wage jobs many years ago, I worked with both whites and recent hispanic immigrants (some were possibly illegal). I can tell you, the hispanic immigrants worked hard, they didn't feel entitled, didn't steal from their employer, didn't complain. I can't say that for many of the whites I worked with. In college, in general, the white kids partied, and the non white kids were more likely to take their education seriously. Both generalizations, but noticeable.

What many racists don't like, is that they are losing what they feel is their entitlement to get paid well for not working hard. Now they have some competition.

Not a radical left position, pretty much as centrist as they come.

I'm glad to see our friends in the pointy hats could make it to the party. The fact that three newcomers are all spouting off the same talking points is quite telling. They are all either the same person or are all members of the same social club.

Just for fun, let's apply the rules of logic to their favorite one liner.

" Anti-racist is anti-white"

Anti-racist = Anti-white Is like saying - 8 = - (4x2)

And if we drop the negatives from both sides of the equation.

we get 8=4x2 and we find that white = racist

So, dear pointy-hatted friends, as you can see, your zinger does nothing to help your cause and everything to show your racism. If you could go back to the imperial wizard and let him know how foolish he is making you all look, that would be fantastic. Thanks for stopping by and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

“Never underestimate the difficulty of changing false beliefs by facts.”
--- Henry Rosovsky, economist

Nevertheless, I'll try.

bposters wrote, among many things, "America was founded on immigration .."

No, America was founded by colonists or settlers. They built an offshoot of European civilization in what, for them, was a wilderness. Immigration is a wholly different thing. It means moving to a country/civilization that's already a going concern.

fenske_art warned that one consequence of suppressing illegal immigration would be that we need to "get ready to pay a lot more for fruit, vegetables and meat."

Wrong. Go to this link ...

montanamile.org/myths/myths_and_facts.htm

... and scroll down to read "the lettuce argument."

Relentless disagrees with Pres. Obama, what a shock! Stop the presses!

Margaret is right on one count.

If you want to end illegal immigration, end the source, jobs.

1. Make it a felony to employ folks without the proper ID, 10K fine and 6 months in prison for each and every occurrence.

2. Establish Real ID in all 50 states. (Tea party folks will go nuts but if you want to end illegal immigration you must be able to tell the wolves from the sheep)

3. Allow for a 6 month amnesty to let illegals go back to their home, after that, anyone without Real ID is deported.

4. Get ready to pay a lot more for fruit, vegetables and meat.

5. Get Whitekidshaverights a job picking fruit and veggies, maybe then they will have a bit more of an understanding about what real work is.

So... originally a person wrote a letter about immigration reform policy.

Now we have a debate between one poster that is concerned about the purity of the aryan race, another who thinks that republicans are motivated by keeping private prisons full, another who thinks that we should deed the entire country to Native Americans...

So even though I mostly agree with the original letter and mostly disagree with the presidents position on the matter, we won't be able to discuss the merits of either because it is drowned out by nonsense.

If I remember rightly, I'm old mind you, mexicans were here first. Some are my relatives. Do your geneology you may find out you are not so white as you think.

Kids is what some of you sound like here. The prejudice people should go back to England. being sarcastic! What are you so scared about, been watching too much Fox TV. Now that is scary. The only reason the republicans made such a big deal over illegal immigrants is because they need more people in their private prisons. They are money to the private prison industry. Jan Brewers campaign manager and her spokesman were both private prison lobbyists. There is less and less coming over the border . look at the statistics. When Your veggies go way up in price, then you will know they have quit coming across at all.

http://www.antiwhitemedia.com/

What organization exists that can save us from this assimilation? Are you a member of this organization?

tommarmot:

"What is the name of this group that is trying to impose assimilation? "

How about the entire so-called "anti-racist"(in reality anti-white) Establishment and mass media?

Are white people allowed to opt-out of "diversity"?

You anti-whites scream "naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjuice" at any white person who does`nt want to "assimilate" don`t you?

There are "discrimination" laws that prohibit white people from having racially exclusive businesses,charities,communities are there not?

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Tell us georgeforrestwhitekids. What is the name of this group that is trying to impose assimilation? What organization is injecting all these Latinos into our homes?

@relentless

"race has nothing to do anyones proposed immigration policy."

More anti-white lies.

Mass immigration and enforced "assimilation" is being imposed on all white countries and ONLY white countries.

White people are told by you anti-whites that we must accept and celebrate our own demographic elimination(GENOCIDE) or be called naziswhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

Yet here you are trying to claim this is not a racial issue?

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

One-way immigration causes the complete genetic extinction of the target population.This is an established theorem in population genetics that can be traced back to the 1931 paper by S.Wright titled "Evolution in Mendelian populations".

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

posters do you put yourself in the same catagory with the radical left? We have plenty of those running around this country. I don't lump all on the left in that catagory. We have whack jobs on both sides so what is your point?

race has to do with people's reactions to immigration policy, and letting "whitekids" spout off about his gibberish should get a response. In fact, it would be nice if those on the right stood up against such ignorant comments, it might help counter the notion that those on the right are primarily motivated by racial attitudes.

My thoughts exactly Relentless. I don't like Obama's position on this issue. I didn't like Bush's position on TARP either. Wow, I must be racist against everyone. I think I even hate myself.

Folks, The article above is about immigration reform and Obamas positions on that. I realize that you are all responding to each other and not the article above but race has nothing to do anyones proposed immigration policy.

whitekidshaverights, I just don't see what's wrong with whites being in the minority--they still incredibly overrepresented among the very rich. And remember that whites are not native to this country. Chinese are the majority in China because they're native to that land. White people are not native to North America. Native Americans should be the ones in the majority, but that's beside the point I suppose. The point is that this country was not meant to be a "white country" because there were already people here when whites got here, and because whites brought blacks with them. Why are you so afraid that whites will no longer be in the majority--are you afraid that you'll actually have to deal with the discrimination they've dealt with for the last 200+ years? If you want to be around lots of white people, go back to Europe, where they came from!
Both you and Ridge need to stop seeing people by color. Cultural identity has nothing to do with what color you are--I've met black Irishmen and white South Africans.
Oh, and guess who flooded America with non-Americans? The Mayflower. We are NOT a white country--for God's sake people, you live in Montana and American Indians are still an invisible population to you?

so, if Japan does it, we should too? You know that argument doesn't fly.

America was founded on immigration, you want to change the laws, go for it. I'm sure people wanted to keep the Irish out, the Scottish out, the Germans out. I'm sure Native Americans wanted to keep everyone out.

But, to close down immigration is, no doubt, completely at odds with American values to this point. In other words, it is un American. To keep people out based on racial characteristics is racist.

Sorry, guys, guess you are going to have to work to be competitive instead of riding on your ancestor's dominance over the country political and social system.

RF, I am white. Not anti-white, just Caucasian oh yes and realistic.

You want to close the borders and allow only whites in? Is that it?

If you have a secret source of white immigrants perhaps you could enlighten us as to their country of origin and when they want to become Americans because between you and me, I don't see them.

White GeNOcide sounds just a little bit like codespeak for if you ain't white you ain't welcome in this country.

In response to fenske_art's anti-white comment below:

Anti-white, in your opinion we have to "deal with it", you are saying that because we are White.

No one is flooding Africa with Non Africans and telling them... "Deal with it, guess you are going to have to work harder" ...cause we are going to create a blended humanity in ONLY Africa.

No one is flooding Japan with non-Japanese and telling them... "Deal with it, guess you are going to have to work harder" ...so we are going to create a blended humanity in ONLY Japan.

Only White countries are doing this and only Anti-Whites like you are pushing this.

YOU want White GeNOcide.

Japan has around 128 million people. They are 98.5% Japanese. Sure there are some "guest workers". But when they get shipped out there is little dissent from the international community. If a white country closes the border they scream bloody murder.

Just because a liberal think tank puts up a website saying Japan should let in Non Japanese. That doesn't mean Japan will do so. They are hardly facing pressure. This website and the groups attached go back quite a ways. They do not appear to be making a dent into Japan.

There is a big difference between a few Korean workers being allowed to live in certain buildings in Tokyo. And what you will read below happening in California. Again this type of "forced integration" is for all White countries and ONLY White Countries.

Obama administration: California’s whitest county MUST BE FORCIBLY INTEGRATED.
http://cofcc.org/2011/03/obama-administration-californias-whitest-must-be-forcibly-integrated/

Non White countries do routinely have guest workers and such. However, they do so at their own leisure. No White Country has ever been allowed a vote on this subject.

By the way, China has tried to force immigration (and integration of groups like Tibetan Nomads) into Tibet. This has routinely been labeled Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide by the UN. You will never hear a peep about the above clear and consistent Targeting of White Children.

Forced immigration into all white countries and only white countries (anywhere else is labeled genocide)

Forced integration in all white countries and only white countries (anywhere else is labeled genocide)

Then they push interracial relationships in all white countries and only white countries .......hmmmmm....there is a pattern emerging here

then they promote a Brown future for ALL White Countries...hmmmm

.......SURE is difficult to see how the word Genocide applies here

Antiwhite:"there are no such thing as white children"
ProWhite:"Of course not! In your visions of the future, you have killed them all".

Yo Whitekidshaverights,

News flash for ya.

All kids in this country legally have rights, the exact same rights.

That's how it is suppose to work.

To quote from below, "Deal with it, guess you are going to have to work harder, and maybe go to college to learn things instead of party and skip class and whine about the unfairness of life on an internet forum.

FIFY BP, ;)

so, are you saying that there is a deliberate attempt to bring about destruction of the white race in America? Is that because the higher standard of living people have, they generally have less children and thus the higher standard of living enjoyed by whites is this country is genocide? Or the fact this country has encouraged immigration throughout its history?

So, the statue of liberty is a symbol of genocide? That is good, I like that. Run with it.

Whenever I see someone who clearly is ideological bring up some obscure historical event from a long time ago, it always makes me doubt their rendition of the story. Whites are going to be in the minority in the near future. Deal with it, guess you are going to have to work harder, and maybe go to college to learn things instead of party and skip class.

Sonechka, In 1998 then President Clinton spoke at a university in Oregon. He stated that whites would be a minority in this country by 2050. Being college students they stood up and cheered. I can not imagine telling Chinese that they will be a minority in China, or Mexicans, they will be a minority in Mexico or Blacks they will be a minority in Africa and having them cheer. Only white countries are doing this and white anti-whites cheer.

The UN resolution on Genocide adopted in 1948 says...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,ethnical, racial or religious group as such: a,b, c, DELI BERATELY inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about it's destruction in whole or in part; Opening the borders and flooding every white child's home with non-whites is a program of Genocide. Anti-racist is anti-white.

And what is your solution, Paul? Hire enough law enforcement to deport 11 million people? Spend money on a fence that people will still find a way to get across? Amnesty means they'll be working legally. They will have to be paid minimum wage, and they will be paying taxes. Legal immigration is difficult, expensive and takes a long time. If we want people to come here legally as opposed to illegally, we have to change our legal immigration procedures to make it easier. Most of the things on the citizenship test are things American citizens couldn't even tell you; why do we expect others to know them? The only requirement for citizenship should be a clean criminal record and the ability to speak enough English to get you around, in my opinion.
whitekidshaverights, I'm a white kid too, and I never felt my rights were being repressed because of people of other races. That's ridiculous. The reason China and Africa aren't taking in immigrants is because the living conditions are so bad that no one wants to live there! If we're going to brag that we're the "best country in the world" we have to expect that others will want to live here! Remember, this country was not only built on the backs of whites; there have been African Americans here from the beginning, and Asians and Hispanics from not much later. This country was built on diversity and the whites have no right to claim any of it, since WE ARE ALL IMMIGRANTS TOO. We killed a bunch of natives. Remember? We have no right to dictate who can and cannot live in our "melting pot." You're probably an upper middle class college kid who has no idea what discrimination and hardship is. Spend some time in a ghetto. Spend some time in a part of our own country where people live without things like electricity. Spend some time with someone who's HIV positive who can't afford medication and is waiting to die. True, there are very poor whites who live badly too. I've met many of them, and guess what? Those poor whites don't hate minorities--if anything, they are more accepting and identify with them. Poverty is an equalizer.
I thought all you right-wingers worshiped Reagan--didn't he grant several million people amnesty too?

always so funny to see right wingers cry about name calling and intellectual laziness. Do you have any self awareness? Socialist, Anti American, Marxist, Fascist... I simply don't see any intellectualism at all coming from the right anymore.

I don't think all right wingers are racist, I'm not sure if most are, but there is definitely a significant amount, and the immigration issue always brings them out. Everyone knows it, whitekid basically admitted to it. I would be ashamed in myself to find myself on the same side as someone talking like that, I certainly would call that person out. But I got two jacks going after me. That just shows a real lack of integrity. Call it when you see it.

The racism charge is just intellectually lazy, it's used to shut down debate because no one want's to be labeled a racist. It's the "left" who only sees color, race or minorities because that is where they see social programs and their power.

geo, what on earth is the correlation between the Berlin Wall and the border fence? I'm not so sure the problem so much racism as it is a problem with legality. As a country, we still have thousands who apply and are accepted legally for immigration. Surely you can understand the difference.

Reagan tears down a wall and is a hero. Now Obama can't get Bush's wall finished fast enough, as if a fence will stop anything. (ie. 10 foot fence needs a 12 foot ladder)

bposters was being kind in his assertions that you are a bunch of blowhard racists. Ignorant, too.

Face it. You hate our president. You hate democracy when it doesn't go your way. You are losers who blame minorities for your inability to compete. McDonalds and Walmart are as far as you will go in life.

read the letter, and yes, even more evidence suggesting that what is really behind your motives is racism. What a really stupid letter. Yes, whitekids, I do assume you are white, pretty much no one else talks like that.

tom is right, people come to this country for a chance to work hard, and do well for themselves. Just because our ancestors got here ahead of most people, doesn't mean you get to be lazy and sit around complaining about how everyone is being mean to you. It certainly doesn't justify your intense hatred for basically everyone else.

Always really funny to see a bunch of Montanans complain about how their lives are affected by other races. Always funny to see a bunch of people who have more advantages than any other race in the world, complain that everyone is living off them. Not funny, what's the word... pathetic.

So, if you think "anti racist" means anti white, then you sure seem to think that all white people are racist, and I for one can tell you that isn't true. You are just loud mouthed, but you don't speak for the entire race. You have no future, give it up

I think that bposter says you're a racist because of your statement that "Obama speaks for the New World Order." There are plenty of people who hear NWO and assume the author is a nut job. It's an assumption.

But your statement "This race problem will be solved when the third world pours into every white country and ONLY into white countries." does sound pretty darned paranoid.. It also makes no sense.

There has ALWAYS been emigration. and there is plenty of cross border emigration in both Asia and Africa. You know why? People go where they can prosper. You know what else? There is almost ALWAYS friction between the immigrants and the native population. People are wired to be xenophobic.

As for Europe, it's much of the same. Muslims, haven't come to Europe as some kind of conspiracy to dilute the whiteness of Germany or France. They came for the jobs! They went because their countries didn't offer them the opportunity to prosper. Sound familiar?

Why did your ancestors come to the US? Answer: Self interest.

There is no conspiracy. By being fearful of one you are allowing yourself to be manipulated. It's an old political trick that has endured because it is effective.

BTW, anti-white is racist too.

bposter says that I am truly racist, only because he assumes that I am white. Anti-racist is just code for anti-white.

To bposters: Read this ...

www.vdare.com/taylor/110322_open_letter.htm

.. and then get back to us with your wise counsel.

Man, there is a lot of Obama derangement syndrome from a bunch of ignorant blowhards. Really funny to hear a bunch of people who have no history if integrity making stupid claims about other people's integrity.

Please, shut up. Go climb back under your rocks.

"Anti racist is just code for anti white" if that statement is not proof positive that many of you nuts are truly racist and hate Obama for his skin color...

Obama speaks for the New World Order, which says there is a race problem. This race problem will be solved when the third world pours into every white country and ONLY into white countries. No one says China or Africa will solve a race problem by bringing in miilions and assimilating, or that diversity is strengh. Only white countries are doing this and only white kids are effected by this. It's a program of Genocide. Anti-racist is just code for anti-white.

Mr. Obama wants for us to be "so like Europe"! The liberal Europe that once was, that is. And now some Europeans are trying to reverse that "wrong" policy, but is it too late!. A policy which has left them inundated with so many "immigrants", illegal immigrants and refugees included, that they just can't afford to give benefits ( some of the countries would be obligated to do so) without raising taxes or taking away from their own citizens. Sound familiar? So now some in the EU are "paying" illegal immigrants to return home!!

He also said (with a straight face) the fence is nearly finished. This man does not even pretend to be engaged anymore, and the press continue to ignore his nonsense.