Judging by the cloture vote yesterday, which was similar to last year's final 62-36 Senate vote on S.2611, the liberal strategy is to get past the chance of a conservative filibuster, then use their domination of both houses of Congress to amend the bill to their heart's content and dare President Bush to veto it, depriving himself of his beloved legacy. Liberals like Nancy Pelosi are up in arms over S.1348's measures trying to cut down on chain migration of extended families.
They may well succeed by playing a mindless "family values" card, since American public discourse is so naive on the subject, almost never distinguishing between nuclear family values (American) and extended family values (foreign).
Surprisingly, the NYT, which normally prints the most mindless letters to the editor, ran an incisive one today:
To the Editor:
Family reunification is the single largest source of legal immigration to the United States and should be limited to spouses and minor children only for several reasons.
First, many immigrants bring in aged parents, at first promising to support them, and then later renege on their promises and place their aged parents, who never worked a day in the United States, on Social Security disability and other social services.
Second, by bringing in a sibling or an adult child, the sponsoring immigrant sets off chain migration, beginning with the sponsored immigrant’s immediate family. His spouse can then eventually bring in her parents and siblings, thus lengthening the chain.
Some of these siblings or children may have been brought in to work in small family businesses. Since these family members are dependent upon the good will of their sponsors, it is unlikely that they will complain about hours, wages and working conditions and may accept a room in the sponsor’s house as part of pay, adding to overcrowded housing.
Finally, by family reunification we are allowing people who have been in the United States for a relatively short amount of time and who may hold citizenship in their country of origin as well as the United States to have more say about whom we allow into this country than people whose ancestors fought and died in our wars, survived our tough economic times, built the United States into the world power that it is today, paid taxes for generations, and who owe allegiance to the United States alone. Is this wise?
Deena Flinchum
Blacksburg, Va., May 20, 2007
If you look at immigration policy from the standpoint of who optimizing who my descendents will marry, of improving the potential spouse pool for your children and grandchildren, what you want to see are A) high quality immigrants (smart, hard-working, law-abiding, well-educated) and B) single (not part of endogamous ethnic groups that won't let their scions marry into your family). This implies that we would want most immigrants to be young, single, well-educated, good earners, and not part of chain migrations. But, don't expect to see that logic explained anywhere.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
22 comments:
a judge in texas has blocked a law from going into effect that prevents landlords from renting to illegal aliens.
apparently he's another person under the delusion that only the federal government can make a decision about whether somebody is in the US illegaly.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3197995
we are allowing people who have been in the United States for a relatively short amount of time and who may hold citizenship in their country of origin as well as the United States to have more say about whom we allow into this country than people whose ancestors fought and died in our wars, survived our tough economic times, built the United States into the world power that it is today, paid taxes for generations, and who owe allegiance to the United States alone.
These people are so big on the extended family model that, like the quote from the Korean that I posted yesterday, they'll reunify their damn families whether we want them to or not (and we know in which direction that reunification will ALWAYS take place.)
And I have posted before about the fact that excessive immigration is basically an estate tax on the poor and middle class. If you're in the bottom 95% of Americans wealth-wise, the most valuable thing you will pass on to your children is your citizenship in the United States, a country that was built on the taxes of your ancestors; and whose liberty was secured by their blood.
Our immigration policies are giving away that citizenship in massive amounts for free, and degrading it as they do.
Republicans don't mind THAT kind of estate tax; but don't you dare tax the estate of some guy who made zillions in financial speculation, or building casinos or selling porn. THAT would be unconscionable.
Is there not one journalist, pundit, or commentator who is HBD aware and has the balls to bring up the IQ issue? Instead of skirting around the issue, just put it out there. Get the accusations of racism, xenophobia, blah, blah, blah.
But, to the average american watching on national television, maybe a discussion of IQ will send them to Richard Lynn's site or here. Maybe after seeing the problems of hispanics in the US (or being a crime victim of one), the magic work "IQ" will set off a light bulb and explain everything, helping them realize that mexicans make mexico, and we don't want to turn the US into Mexico (or any latin american country for that matter).
All we need is one person willing to sacrifice their favor in the media in order to get the real debate started on preventing a national disaster.
Is there not one journalist, pundit, or commentator who is HBD aware and has the balls to bring up the IQ issue? - tabootruth
If the journatators bring up the IQ issue they'll be making a big mistake. We already have a good proxy for that with crime, and even that sort of talk angers the Hispanics, moving them more to the left.
Rule of law, wages, quality of life, a unifying language and culture: those are the kinds of issues that convince voters without provoking minorities.
One wonders to what extent the Roman empire (Western) was undone by the influx of immigrants looking to benefit from the economy that the Romans built ....
Yeah, I wish Mark, that not having to resort to drastic measures would work. Unfortunately, the American people were fooled into going to WAR because the President was able to convince everyone that every person in the world wants to be in a free, civilized society.
It's the same logic here. Unless someone brings up specific, BIOLOGICAL factors that hinder Latin American assimilation, people will continue to believe the same b.s. that all humans are the same and can be converted to the ideal citizens.
The crime, language, life issues don't work. The neocons think that everyone wants to and can act like Americans, because we're so great. The liberals pull out cultural relativism and say that we shouldn't force others to adapt to us (even if they migrated here).
One wonders to what extent the Roman empire (Western) was undone by the influx of immigrants looking to benefit from the economy that the Romans built ....
You need not wonder too much. It wasn't the Huns or the Germans external to the Empire that really did the Romans in. It was a combination of things, but one big problem was the gradual monopolization of the Roman Empire's military by Germans who had been allowed to settle within the Empire and who were often employed as low-level soldiers. The Germans didn't fully assimilate and had a tendency to put tribal interests ahead of imperial ones. Flavius Aëtius is often called the "Last Roman General" but that is only because nearly all the western Roman generals after him were Germans. Aëtius himself was reportedly half-Gothic or half-Scythian.
The story of the Huns is an interesting one with some lessons for border security:
The Huns are thought to have been a branch of a people the Chinese called the Xiong Nu. The Great Wall of China was originally constructed to repel frequent incursions by the Xiong Nu* in northern China. It proved very effective and some of the Xiong Nu migrated west across the steppes in search of new territory to pillage. Eventually, Attila arrived on unguarded European frontier and, as we all know, the Roman Empire had no Great Wall. The rest is history.
* Many people mistakenly think it was the Mongols that were the problem. The Mongols under Genghis Khan don't appear in history until nearly a thousand years after the Xiong Nu. By that time, the frontiers of China had been pushed far to the north of the Wall, which was in disrepair.
Everyone keep in mind, there doesn't have to be immigration. Your grandchildren can marry Americans and they'll be alright.
Not according to this site:
Arranged marriages are a big thing in some cultures. Indians and Muslims are particularly big about arranging marriages across borders. No points for guessing which country they typically settle in.
This site isn't a one-off, either. Go to an Indian news site and the odds are very high you'll find an add for a marriage site.
If you think our current immigration problem is a bitch, just remember that one day we're gunna have to deal with the arranged marriage dilemna, wher egroup X doubles it's population in the host country every generation just by arranging marriages. Holland has that problem already.
The Derb returns, just in time to save us from this immigration scam. He may not stop the bill, but his curmudgeonly demeanor may save my sanity.
I plead guilty to posting comments here and there but not doing anything substantive on the immigration issue. I attempted to raise the issue of whether the washington wire wsj blog was biased, incompetent, or coopted for not making a single post on the cloture vote, but 3 or 4 attempted comments at the blog bounced; 2 comments accusing the censors of bias were almost instantaneously carried but with no context.
I hope everyone keeps doing everything they can. I know it gets tiring calling and emailing to bitch about this amnesty and to thank those who are doing the right thing, but I hope everyone keeps it us.
I would have never thought a few weeks ago that I would be emailing Robert Byrd a sincere message of appreciation. I try to persuade those who might be persuadable and I send a constant stream of nasty-grams to the likes of Hagel, McCain, Boxer, and Feinstein.
Multiculturalists like to appeal to our desire for novelty when discussing immigration. Here are these wonderful people with fascinating languages, cuisines, clothing & music that we will have the good fortune to be exposed to if we welcome them to settle within our borders.
Not so often mentioned is that immigrants from other cultures have customs and marriage practices that may give them an advantage over citizens of Western societies. Family size is perhaps the most salient issue since in a democracy a subculture can have influence directly proportional to the numbers of people identifying with that subculture.
Leftists like to make accusations of neo-nazi-darwinianism anytime someone raises the issue of IQ and ability when discussing immigration but remain silent on the consequences of subcultures who are biologically more successful gaining political advantage simply from having more children than the rest of us.
I think it's not only important that we discuss the characteristics of the immigrants we allow into the US but the obvious conflict between Minority vs minority rights. Is it really fair that our way of life, our freedoms and ideals undergo constant revision from newcomers who belong to ethnic/religious groups sizeable enough to become a voting block?
Do we revert to earlier forms of our own culture, marrying & starting families in our teens in order to compete? Or do we abandon the dictates of multiculturalism by insisting that newcomers adapt to our cultural hegemony simply because we established the country?
All indications are that we won't pursue either of the above courses which means that we will simply be revised into obscurity. Are the multiculturalist-socialist elite really content to let this happen?
(I'm constantly amazed that the articles on iSteve don't cause so much controversy that he is banned from the internet. Though I'm glad there is at least one forum for discussing potential problems created by diversity that the politically correct ignore or deny, I worry that iSteve is under constant attack by the minions of diversity. How do you evade them? I've been stalked by left-wing fanatics for much less... )
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/05/malum_in_se_mal.html
WTF is wrong with econ profs?
I'm constantly amazed that the articles on iSteve don't cause so much controversy that he is banned from the internet.
It's because his site is based in the U.S. where freedom of speech is still respected. I think the U.S. may be only country where this is still the case. In Canada Steve would not be charged criminally; however, he would be broughht before the human rights commission and made to pay a large fine and take the site down.
bill richardson finally entered the race for president, and went directly into indentity politics. he boldly and without qualification said that he wanted to be the mexican president for the mexicans.
he has probably taken the strongest racially explicit position of any mainstream politician to run for president. this is a governor now we're talking about.
The Derb returns, just in time to save us from this immigration scam. He may not stop the bill, but his curmudgeonly demeanor may save my sanity.
Interesting and insightful comment:
We don't need no steenkin' bill. We have all the laws we need. Let's enforce them. Illegal immigration is a law-enforcement issue. The only further legislative action that might be required is appropriation of funds to hire more immigartion cops. *Any* other bill is is a bad bill. Just enforce the law. What is the point of making new laws if the Executive won't enforce the current ones?
The exact same argument applies with equal force to the War on Terror, Homeland Security, and the Patriot Act.
Simply because he is at the National Review, I'm quite confident that Derbyshire took the opposite stance on that issue.
re: the dutch reader
Is there any evidence that male and female muslims hold differing views over the kinds of things being forced on muslim women? And are there any equivalent things being forced on the muslim men?
Yes I'm aware that forcing something on someone implies that they, as an individual dont support it, but that doesn't mean that women as a group don't. I.E. A man can be drafted involuntarily into a war that men overall support.
I've been looking around for a way to contact Daniel Larison via email, and I was wondering if any of you could help me out. Thanks in advance
Check out the responses to one of the WSJ's latest pro-amnesty/pro-open borders editorials. I count one pro letter versus sixteen con.
Interesting comment by the Dutch reader. I live in a major European city with a large Muslim population. While one occasionally sees Muslim male/white female couples here, one almost never sees white male/Muslim female couples.
While one occasionally sees Muslim male/white female couples here, one almost never sees white male/Muslim female couples. - green mamba
All those couples are pushin' up daisies.
Paternalistic Muslims maintain fanatical control over their women - hence the burjas and hijabs. As with any religion, Muslim women are by far the most pious.
Post a Comment