The WSJ reports:
Obama Tells Hispanic Caucus He's Willing to Tackle ImmigrationHispanic Business reported:President Barack Obama is ready to add immigration to his already full plate.
Obama told members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Wednesday that he’s still willing to push for a comprehensive immigration overhaul during the first year of his presidency.
That could be good news for some business groups that pushed for changes but came up short under President George W. Bush.
“I think the collective sense at the end was, this is a good step,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat from Arizona, who attended the one-hour session at the White House Wednesday. All 24 members of the caucus attended. Hispanic lawmakers and the president discussed specific timelines for trying to win passage of legislation, but neither side was speaking publicly about dates for action following their meeting.
The White House seemed to play down both the talks and their substance. ... Caucus members’ statements following the meeting said that overhauling immigration law was the only agenda item.
The interest of the White House in limiting attention to the controversial issue is most likely a sign of how difficult it will be for Obama to muster the support needed to win passage of substantial change, especially as he spends his political capital trying to fix the economy and on reforming health care.
Grijalva said Obama also promised to use his executive authority to make some substantive immigration changes soon, without waiting for passage of legislation.
But immigration legislation is on the agenda and moving forward, said Hispanic lawmakers who attended the West Wing meeting. The caucus consists of Democrats and one independent.
Perhaps somebody should have mentioned that fact to Karl Rove eight years ago: no matter how many votes George W. Bush picks up personally, over 90% of Hispanic elected officials are Democrats, so more Hispanics just mean more Democratic power.
"The president said more than any of us expected him to say," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill.
Mr. Gutierrez, who is wrapping up a cross-country tour to highlight how families are affected by the immigration system, said the lawmakers "made it absolutely clear that this is a civil rights issue of our community."
Oh, boy.
Deep down, Obama thinks about the various ethnicities the way the Rev. Lovejoy thinks about the religions:
Homer Simpson: "God is punishing me."To Obama, there are only Blacks, Whites, and Miscellaneous.
Rev. Lovejoy: "No, but he was working in the hearts of your friends and neighbors when they went to your aid, be they Christian, Jew, or [looks at Apu, pauses] ... Miscellaneous."
Apu: "Hindu! There are 700 million of us!"
Rev. Lovejoy: "Aw, that's super."
But, if he's starting to think about amnesty not as another boring Miscellaneous issue (excuse me, Hispanic issue), but as a civil rights issue, watch out. At least, that's what Rep. Gutierrez's plan for manipulating Obama seems to be.
Obama told the group that he will work on immigration in a method similar to other major policy initiatives. There will be a public forum on immigration, possibly within the next two months, to unveil key principles of overhaul legislation.
The recent history of federal votes on immigration is that the recessions come at the beginning of decades but the votes only come during the prosperous late middle periods of the decades. Thus, the 1981-1982 recession led to public demands to do something about illegal immigration. But supporters of the status quo stalled until booming 1986, then passed a "compromise" amnesty / enforcement bill, which they corruptly failed to enforce. The 1991-92 recession led to public demands for a crackdown, which the establishment fobbed off until making a few minor reforms during booming 1996. The 2001-02 recession derailed Bush's amnesty plan for half a decade, until he, Ted Kennedy, and John McCain revived it in the Housing Bubble years of 2006 and 2007, which the public still managed to defeat.
So, if Obama wants to fight for amnesty in 2009, bring it on. It's our best chance, ju-jitsu style, to get something positive done instead.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
71 comments:
Steve, isn't this talk of amnesty kind of pointless?
I mean, we already have de-facto amnesty for illegal aliens since there is very little done about immigration enforcement.
In fact, even if "official" amnesty is not passed during Obama's tenure, the pro-illegal immigration lobby still wins since the more illegal immigrants and their citizen children there are, the more difficult it becomes to enforce immigration.
By this I mean that at a certain point, the USA will be so Hispanic (let's say north of 25%) that any "hardline" measures against illegal immigration will be impossible to pass without possibly inciting a civil war senario, or at the very least a massive backlash.
I mean, there will come a time when most of the young and/or able-bodied men (18-40 years of age) in the southwest will be Hispanic. Are these men going to kick out the illegals? Are you serious?
These talks of "hardline" immigration reform to me sound less and less likely by the day. Further, anyone who honestly thinks that a civil war senario is a good thing (i.e., "bring it on" attitude) is a fool.
"made it absolutely clear that this is a civil rights issue of our community."
Boy this guy Gutierrez is really scum, and it's disgusting how the MSM gives him and his ilk a free pass on the obvious racial/ethnic boosterism as well as all the absurd talk about "civil rights".
Preventing an amnesty has an obvious benefit, in that it reduces somewhat the incentive for future illegal immigration. Defeating amnesty might also encourage some illegals to leave. But defeating amnesty isn’t enough. With the devolution of the USA into a third world hell hole on the horizon, the mind of those Americans who don’t wish to live (or die) in such a “society” will have their minds powerfully concentrated.
Worth noting that the Wall Street Journal is the US's not-doctrinaire-liberal newspaper, but that its editorial positions are aligned with the interests of big business and its executives--rather than with some recognizable Conservatism.
As to immigration, the WSJ has been consistently and stridently held the "more the merrier!" stance for many years. A plentiful supply of compliant nannies and cabana boys, depressed wages for hotel maids and restaurant busboys, ably manicured lawns and gardens--what's not to like?
The WSJ's news coverage doesn't reliably follow the party line of the editorial board. Often, its articles are written from a more typically liberal viewpoint.
Hence the diversity of perspectives on immigration in its pages.
Steve,
Question for you.
One of the ideas you've raised is that the Democrats want to Amnesty those folks quick is to get that voting block in place before the economic conditions send them back home where it's cheaper to be unemployed.
What if Obama believes that the economy will still be behind at the end of his term, he's toast electorally. Does he believe he can buy enough votes with amnesty plus reckless social spending to ensure a Democratic majority from 2012 onward?
Aikido is the art famous for using your opponent's force against him, not ju-jitsu. (Think Steven Seagal defenestrating the bad guy who lunges at him.)
"Further, anyone who honestly thinks that a civil war senario is a good thing (i.e., "bring it on" attitude) is a fool."
There's not going to be a civil war, but to think that there's not going to be some sort of pushback from English speaking Americans of European descent is foolish also.
What you're likely to see is Anglos bailing out once a tipping point is reached in a particular area, with that pattern repeating itself over and over. For example, South Florida isn't really a part of the United States anymore, culturally and linguistically it's Cuban, with corruption in its politics and business to match, so most of the Anglos have cleared out - it's only 15% non-Hispanic white now.
At some point, the same thing is going to happen in southern California. It's going to become more and more difficult to do business and navigate everyday life if you don't have at least "survival Spanish" skills, and the taxes on those making any kind of decent living will skyrocket to provide social services for all the poor Mexicans that surround you. Basically, you'd be crazy to not want to leave.
Self-segregation is our future, I think, although I suppose that there will always be substantial migration by Mexicans seeking to escape the screwed up places they live in. The only difference will be that they'll be fleeing California or Texas for Minnesota, or wherever it is the Anglos have gone and set up a prosperous, functioning society.
and you're surprised? As Brimelow said its a MOG (minority occupied government).
SO what if it hurts poor blacks, it really sticks it to whitey.
"...no matter how many votes George W. Bush picks up personally, over 90% of Hispanic elected officials are Democrats, so more Hispanics just mean more Democratic power."
I don't follow. The republican Hispanics will still be voting republican in the same proportion to the Hispanic population. The percentage of representatives wouldn't have anything to do with that.
The support for kicking amnesty's ass is going to be a lot higher this time around than last time, I think. Unfortunately, there are fewer Republican representatives in Congress. So it might be tooth and nail again. Maybe some of those Blue Dogs will be of use.
I think the collective sense at the end was, this is a good step,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat from Arizona,
My state (AZ) used to be a Republican stronghold, but now it has a Democratic majority among its congressional delegation. This happened because of Northerners moving to my state, and all of the anchor babies from the illegals. Scottsdale used to have JD Hayworth as its congressman, who used to run anti illegal ads. Now it has Harry Mitchell, a liberal Democrat. Scottsdale is too expensive to have millions of illegals, but it does have lots of liberals who cashed out their overvalued houses in the northeast and bought into a nice area down here.
So, if Obama wants to fight for amnesty in 2009, bring it on. It's our best chance, ju-jitsu style, to get something positive done instead.
Crap, I hit send before I finished my comment.
So, if Obama wants to fight for amnesty in 2009, bring it on. It's our best chance, ju-jitsu style, to get something positive done instead.
I have to agree with King Obama, the Liberal have almost completely won. Even if we give up the southwest, what is to prevent this from repeating and losing another chunk of territory?
Boy this guy Gutierrez is really scum, and it's disgusting how the MSM gives him and his ilk a free pass on the obvious racial/ethnic boosterism as well as all the absurd talk about "civil rights".
How is it disgusting? At some point it should be publicly understood to be normal for these people. What is disgusting is so many Americans agree with the MSM, and keep watching it.
Yeah, what King Obama said. I'm not so sure the president is going to push an amnesty so much as stop enforcement, as his own DHS secretary has pretty much done, and end independent efforts at enforcement, like Joe Arpaio's (a great example of anarchotyranny, btw), and make amnesty a fait accompli.
I would be more than happy to kick out every last damn illegal right now, and suffer the economic consequences. But there would be economic consequences, short term at least, unless the situation gets so bad that Americans are demanding the jobs even illegals now have, which isn't all that unlikely.
I actually hope he does push amnesty. It's a fight I'd love to have, again. Right now people are pretty much ignoring the issue as our laws go unenforced. Raise the amnesty issue and the consequences of our immigration policy. Make people aware (right before the 2010 elections). We may lose. The Democrats may get their amnesty. But by lack of coverage we're losing anyway. Mass amnesty combined with Obama's new beautiful socialist paradise would lead to budget deficits so massive and a decline in quality of life so rapid that no one could miss it. Tens of millions of non-citizens would make a run for the border in order to qualify for the amnesty. The incompetence of the government would be revealed in full.
Right now all of our efforts at stimulus have indicated that neither we nor our politicians have really accepted the fact that the USA is now permanently headed for a lower overall standard of living, in large part thanks to the mass influx of the less intelligent. We haven't accepted it.
As a complete side note, I just "watched," more or less, Obama's speech on the stimulus. Joe Biden introduced him. I now understand why Obama chose Biden. Next to Cheney, Bush always looked like a fool. Next to Biden, Obama always almost looks like a genius.
Our nation is in good hands.
Steve --
You have no grasp of politics. Obama NOW with a huge Democratic majority in the House and enough in the Senate can pass anything he wants. So he will.
Amnesty is coming, it's coming "Big Time" and there is NOTHING you or paleos can do about it. A President McCain would have wanted it but would have been stymied by Republican support he needed and Democratic reflexive opposition.
So what if most of America will HATE HATE HATE 40 million Mexicans suddenly walking over the border as Mexico collapses and we suffer a deep, deep depression?
CONGRESS makes the rules, and as Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Charles Rangel show, those seats are practically hereditary. Democrats never lose.
It's a done deal, Democrats, the Media, and Obama will transform this country, and paleos who told themselves pretty fantasies and lies about how much "better" it would be to have Obama than McCain have to deal with the fact that elections have consequences.
America will simply become Mexico Norte, with official discrimination against the White minority, absent family/political connections.
You wanted Obama, now you have him, and the transformation of America into basically, Mexico in terms of culture and politics and economy is part of the deal.
Even if we give up the southwest, what is to prevent this from repeating and losing another chunk of territory?
Snow.
I grew up in California and having moved away it's increasingly obvious that the Southwest has fallen because the weather is so good there, you never really have to think about the future.
In the frozen north, the feckless may be able to destroy the cities but they will never be able to survive anywhere they are responsible for remember to put coats on.
the USA is now permanently headed for a lower overall standard of living,
There's still a bit of time to turn things around. Deporting the illegals and or revoking birthright citizenship would remove over 400,000 anchor babies a year and cut Hispanic population growth by about 30%.
But even in a worst case scenario, we could just let parts of the Southwest, such as South Texas, secede.
Losing a moderate amount of territory isn't a huge deal for a world power; for instance the Romans and other empires lost major stretches of land from time to time via war and often lived to fight another day.
Anyway, this defeatist talk is premature. If whites finally wake up there will be many policy options short of civil war Americans could advance to manage our minority population properly.
A President McCain would have wanted it but would have been stymied by Republican support he needed and Democratic reflexive opposition.
"Democratic reflexive opposition", lol. As bad as Obama is, I'm under no illusion that McCain wouldn't have been even worse on this issue. (Romney on the other hand...)
At this stage, I figure it's more than 50% likely that I'll emigrate to Singapore or elsewhere in East Asia later in my life. But I'm not giving up just yet. The Republicans have one last chance to get their act together, properly repudiate the mismanagement of the W years, and surge back to power on a platform of rewarding those who work hard and play by the rules. I started becoming politically active for the first time in my life the week after the 2008 election, and I'm going to fight as hard as I can until either we actually pull this off, or the US is destined to go the way of Brazil and give up the mantle of world leadership.
The thing is, the rest of you should care even more than me. I'm of East Asian ancestry, so as mentioned above, I have a credible backup plan.
"You wanted Obama, now you have him, and the transformation of America into basically, Mexico in terms of culture and politics and economy is part of the deal."
Right. Of course Bush was the original pro amnesty guy.
"testing99 said...
Steve --
You have no grasp of politics. Obama NOW with a huge Democratic majority in the House and enough in the Senate can pass anything he wants. So he will."
And what would be the case with McCain? A president who is gung-ho for amnesty, a Republican minority that would vote for it out of party loyalty (these are Republicans were talking about, remember - they wouldn't cross their party's leader in the first six months of his first term), and a Democratic majority that would praise him for his bipartisanship and positively slobber over the prospect of their impending electoral hegemony (which they may already have anyway).
At least with a Democrat in office, some Republicans might gird up the guts to fight an amnesty plan.
There is something that YOU do not realize, Testing99, as indeed there is so much that you do not realize: What we are seeing now - a Democratic majority trying to engineer a permanent electoral lock on the nation - is the consequence of the policies that YOU advocated. Endless war in the middle-east, a bogus war on terror, always supporting the establishment Republican candidate - this is what YOU wanted. Well, many Americans are sick of it, and it is what persuaded enough of them to vote for Obama.
Enjoy your victory. Republicans like you are its architects.
Worth noting that the Wall Street Journal is the US's not-doctrinaire-liberal newspaper, but that its editorial positions are aligned with the interests of big business and its executives--rather than with some recognizable Conservatism. As to immigration, the WSJ has been consistently and stridently held the "more the merrier!" stance for many years.
OpinionJournal used to provide a prominent link to its readers' responses, and when everytime it argued for open borders (usually about once a week) the rebuttals were withering in their assault on the Urinal's faulty logic. They were almost always unanimously opposed to the opne borders stance.
Wonder if that had anything to do with burying the responses?
t99 sez:
"Steve --
You have no grasp of politics.."
I used to enjoy reading t99's rant about unwilling chicks and suitcase nukes. But he's becoming ever more pedantic. Much like the crowd he's always explicitly or implicitly covering for. It’s getting a little tiring to constantly read:
Steve, you have no grasp of politics.
Steve, your age is showing.
Steve, you are flat wrong.
Steve,...
when Steve is by far the most prolific individual thinker on the web.
There's two more reasons McCain would've been deadly on manesty: 1) because he managed to support it against his party's wishes and still got the nomination; 2) because, if he had won, he would've won the presidency in a year where all the odds were against the GOP. A lot of GOP congressmen would've backed him just because of that.
And, again, the GOP would've been blamed for the result, no matter how many Republicans voted against it, no matter how many Dems voted for it.
It's not about comparing things to the perfect, T99 - it's about comparing them to the reality.
Bush was able to corral some Republicans into voting for 'it's not an amnesty' but will Obama get any GOP support (other than McCain)? It takes 60 Senators, so with 58 Dems, add one McCain, and a few fellow travelers and subtract six to ten blue-dog Dems.
Obama could burn up copious amounts of political good will in trying to strong arm an amnesty through - Bush did so and probably lost 5-8% approval points in his embarrassing double-dip loss. Why would Obama damage his presidency on an issue that probably harms 'his' blacks more than whites (given that legalized illegals will compete for the same semi/unskilled jobs and for the same quota-based jobs).
Another thing, Obama will not lower himself into disguising amnesty with some sort of Bushian gobbledygook. Bush managed to muddy the debate as he was sufficiently arrogant, wet-brained, or just plain dumb enough to be able to look the American people in the eyes and tell us something that was obviously ridiculous. Would our poised Obama lower himself to that level of mendacity? No, he'll have to call it an amnesty and come up with a reason for the American people to support it. Then the great debate begins - in the middle of a really big recession.
Anonymous said...
Snow.
I grew up in California and having moved away it's increasingly obvious that the Southwest has fallen because the weather is so good there, you never really have to think about the future.
In the frozen north, the feckless may be able to destroy the cities but they will never be able to survive anywhere they are responsible for remember to put coats on.
Nooo! My relatives live in central Washington east of the cascades. Their town is half Hispanic despite receiving snow part of the year. This time the Mexicans are claiming that they are fighting for the territory that they lost in the Mexican war. Next time they will claim they are fighting in the name of our Indians. What is to prevent this from happening over and over again until Whites lose Quebec?
Eh said..
Boy this guy Gutierrez is really scum, and it's disgusting how the MSM gives him and his ilk a free pass on the obvious racial/ethnic boosterism as well as all the absurd talk about "civil rights".
I agree with that statement 100%.Gutierrez is a walking talking human turd, born from the same political swamp as Blago and Obama. If you look at his official congressional web page, http://luisgutierrez.house.gov, the picture images are from Puerto Rico not from the 4th Congressional District of Illinois. It seems pretty blatent where his loyalties lie.
Many of the pessimistic comments on this site talk about demographic destiny and how hopeless the situation is, and I agree that the numbers look bad. However this is still our country and we need to fight for it. I for one would rather go down fighting then let it go down with a pathetic wimper.
I don't think lack of Republicans really changes the legislative picture for amnesty. It's always been the bastard stepchild of Rockerfeller Republican business interests and Democratic Hispanic race hustlers.
The other side cuts across party lines as well - blue collar types worried about their jobs and people who'd rather speak English as they go about their daily business.
It's going to be just as tough a fight for Obama as it was for Bush. More so as the shine seems to be coming off.
"I'm of East Asian ancestry, so as mentioned above, I have a credible backup plan."
What happens to America happens to East Asia. You're living in a fantasy if you think there is an easy out for you. The world is too interconnected. There is no island when the ocean is on fire.
I don't understand why the big business Conservatives don't understand that they're hanging themselves by letting in millions of people who will eventually support and vote for policies that end up hurting big business?
I guess these are the same people who created all these wonderful investment "instruments" with the big payoffs coming in the form of global depression?
I suppose the super rich types like Gates and Buffet figure they got theirs, so who cares if America is ruined for everybody else? If taxes are raised, then it hurts the Orange Country (3-5 million net worth) Republicans more than it hurts the Buffets or Soros.
So the super rich can continue to be the super rich and Orange County types can't catch up. The political establishment likes this becuase no one new can challenge them. And the "middle class" gets to "integrate" with the NAMs and enjoy diversity.
Am I the only one who thinks this whole thing is going *not* as planned?
Obama has some big pro-immigration agenda? I have a scarier notion. The man doesn't have half a clue what's going on. Neither do his far left advisers.
Probably none of us really has a clue what we are in for in the next few decades. One thing I can say is: don't underestimate the American people. A quick look at a history book should tell you that.
The whole country is still in denial the change that has happened. Not will: has. Steve, you live in LA? Do your readers a service and talk about the changes in your slice of life in the last few years. We could use the tips.
Maybe even little adjustments you didn't think much of except looking back at the big picture. Avoiding a street here. Driving instead of walking there. Not being able to count on such and such functioning like it used to. Not letting your children do X that used to be such a great part of growing up a few decades ago.
It would be good and valuable journalism.
I grew up in SF, and I am younger than Steve. I am 34. In my lifetime:
* entire neighborhoods lost their diverse, majority-white-owned retail strips. Bustling, interesting, prosperous, locally owned shopping districts were turned into corporate malls like Chestnut Street or a desert of Chinese-owned dry cleaners, tutoring centers, doughnut shops and kamei stores, like Clement Street
* SFUSD ceased to be about education in any way and became 100% political
* the bus system became dirtier, more dangerous, and less reliable
* crime and antisocial behavior went down in the 90s but then went back up. Anecdotes: I grew up in a nice part of SF, but even so, in the 80s we couldn't have flowerpots on our stoop because people would smash or steal them. Then that stopped. But around 2001 more serious crime skyrocketed. The amount of violent crime there is in SF doesn't seem to be well known outside of the city.
* When I was in high school, the police were local boys who went to a few Catholic high schools and knew the city well. This isn't true anymore. They're still quite good police officers, but they aren't San Franciscans.
* I started to notice around 1996, people stopped striking up interesting conversations on the bus, or at cafes or bars. People got colder and less social and more cliquey.
* As a young woman, I rarely feared for my safety and never in a crowd. People looked out for each other, in the normal way people do - if people saw someone hassling a lady they would do something about it. This is NOT TRUE anymore. Thugs can do pretty much whatever they want in plain view and nobody tries to stop them.
* complete loss of the old campy fun gay world and the end of the party. For example, when I was in high school, we all went to the Castro street party on Halloween. We ran around in our costumes higher than God and had a fantastic and completely safe time. Now, there are shootings.
* mass destruction of beautiful irreplaceable buildings and their replacement with steel and glass horrors
An interesting fact is that all of this will be vociferously denied by most current SF residents. If you force them to acknowledge SOME reality, like the clusterfuck of traffic or landlord tenant law, they will invariably say that change is inevitable. While this is true, all of this change brought nothing good. Nothing good that has happened or come out of SF for 15 years easily. Burning Man is pretty much it.
My relatives live in central Washington east of the cascades. Their town is half Hispanic despite receiving snow part of the year.
That's not snow, that's entertainment. I am talking real snow.
Steve, a morning radio news program here ( in Dixie, far from the golden West ) Wednesday morning reported that the O. had orated in CA ( El Monte, was it? ), saying that American workers need a raise and the way to get them a raise is to ... help undocumented workers come in out of the shadows, so that they can become Americans and ... join a union!
Probably the paleo-Bolshie Service Workers' International Union? -- And with the "card check" law passed, banning secret ballots in votes to join or not join a union? -- DD
I hope that I didn't dream this, because a linkage with amnesty for illegal Mexicans and compulsory union membership may be the only way to turn both the actual US Chamber of Commerce as well as Republicans of the C. of C. ilk against wide open borders.
Bush was able to corral some Republicans into voting for 'it's not an amnesty' but will Obama get any GOP support (other than McCain)?
Yes - Specter, Snowe, Collins, and Graham, for certain. Just look at which GOP senators voted for it last time. Most of them will vote for it again. But he'll lose several who are up for re-election in 2010, and maybe even a few who aren't up until 2012. His bigger worry is the House. The House has full elections every 2 years, and they'll be keenly aware that most of the amnestied won't yet be voting by 2010 (though in any amnesty they'll probably accelerate the citizenship process to almost immediate). Republicans in the House are still aware of what happened to 12-year member Chris Cannon, who got smoked 60-40 in his primary last year; and lots of Dems ran as alleged enforcers.
I'd much rather have an official attempt at amnesty rather than the silent amnesty we're getting now. Put it back on the table, at a time when no one can say they're "doing jobs Americans won't do." Give the GOP an issue to unite around and define themselves on. It'll put enforcement front and center for the 2010 and 2012 elections. No one's talking about immigration right now, so there's no one telling them how bad mass immigration is for our country.
But even in a worst case scenario, we could just let parts of the Southwest, such as South Texas, secede.
Boy, are you confused! The whole point of immigration policy is to foster parasitism. Why would parasites secede from their host?
Obama will win this fight. Last time they tried to amnesty illegals, with S. 1348 in 2007, they lost by one Senate vote the time they came closest to passing it (remember they kept trying to pass it over and over again). Now the Senate has only 41 Republicans, so the Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority if they can get just one Republican, plus one for every Democrat who votes against amnesty, which will probably be a small number - close to zero.
McCain, Brownback, Collins, Martinez, Lugar, Graham, Specter, done. Unless there are six Democratic senators who will go against their own still-popular president.
And where is this anti-immigration backlash we've been expecting? The economy is in the crapper and immigration is still on the back burner, getting less attention from the right than it did in the good times of 2006 and 2007. There's a reasonable chance that Obama will be able to sneak amnesty through without a real fight, as they almost did in 2007, before talk radio picked up on it.
The Democrats would stupid not to add millions of Democratic voters to the rolls, and they are the evil party, not the stupid party.
Republicans of the C. of C. ilk...
That would be Republicans who suck on the big...well, you already have the acronym figured out...
Maybe even little adjustments you didn't think much of except looking back at the big picture. Avoiding a street here. Driving instead of walking there. Not being able to count on such and such functioning like it used to.
The real problem is being able to count on things like they used to, even though things have gotten worse. Technology is ameliorating all of the social decay we see around us. If technology were the same in 1955 how much worse would things be compared to then because of cultural, familial, and political decay? Technology has aided it some, but not entirely.
"What happens to America happens to East Asia. You're living in a fantasy if you think there is an easy out for you. The world is too interconnected. There is no island when the ocean is on fire."
What Asian country is allowing massive immigration again?
And where is this anti-immigration backlash we've been expecting? The economy is in the crapper and immigration is still on the back burner, getting less attention from the right than it did in the good times of 2006 and 2007.
It doesn't get attention until Congress puts it on the agenda. Then watch all hell break lose. As I said, the body to watch is the House. The Democrats were willing to vote for it last time because the blame was mostly going to be on the GOP's head. Not this time.
There's a reasonable chance that Obama will be able to sneak amnesty through without a real fight, as they almost did in 2007, before talk radio picked up on it.
Yes, because talk radio's gunna ignore it this time around, because that's how Rush Limbaugh gets 25 million listeners - by ignoring the issues that really stir people's passions.
You're right that we might lose - but we're already losing, slowly but surely, so long as the status quo continues, so long as the issue goes unnoticed and unmentioned. Every baby of an illegal born here is automatically considered a citizen - and that's 400,000 babies a year.
How can it be true that so much of the “change” that we have had in recent decades has not been good? I ask this because today at National Review Neocon David Frumbag has told us that all the change we have had is actually good and “conservatives” are far better off then they were in 1955.
FROM THE MOUTH OF DAVID FRUMBAG:
True, the news is mostly bad these days. America is governed by leaders determined to veer far and fast to the left, to build a hugely bigger government and to step back from the struggle against dangerous enemies abroad. Yet for all our problems, our situation is better in almost every way than was the situation of 1955. Let us study history and learn optimism. Stop? No – forward
Technological improvement != social/cultural/political improvement. Sometimes an increase in one masks declines in the other.
The problem with this supposed Democrat victory from all of these illegals is this: how do white Democrats expect to control an ever-growing, ethnic-nationalist oriented group of people? What prevents these Hispanics from simply seizing power from all of these white Democrats?
This is where you will get your backlash...from the white liberals that have lost power to the invasion.
anonymous said...
That's not snow, that's entertainment. I am talking real snow.
Then what parts of America are salvageable? the northeast? Alaska? As far as I know here are illegals in both places.
Testing99 is deluded. McCain and the Dems would have provided the amnesty cover under the guise of bipartisanship. Furthermore, McCain has a long history of supporting amnesty regardless of the political costs. When it comes to the cause of turning America into a Third World dump, you won't find a more fanatical supporter than Juan McCain.
We had two losers running for office as far as an amnesty was concerned. Obama is a marginally better choice than McCain on this issue.
Anonymous said...
The problem with this supposed Democrat victory from all of these illegals is this: how do white Democrats expect to control an ever-growing, ethnic-nationalist oriented group of people? What prevents these Hispanics from simply seizing power from all of these white Democrats?
The purpose isn't to build a utopia where they rule and can build their ideas, but to destroy the group they hate. I don't think there is a larger plan for the American Left after the destruction of America. Once we are gone then the Left in other countries can go on with their plans, in fact they already are.
A President McCain would have wanted it but would have been stymied by Republican support he needed and Democratic reflexive opposition.
t99, that is the most stupid thing you've ever written. And God knows, that's saying something. Do you actually have some memory of the Democrats reflexively opposing Bush's many amnesty efforts? Ted Kennedy was working hand in glove with Bush and McCain on those.
Testing99 said...
You wanted Obama, now you have him, and the transformation of America into basically, Mexico in terms of culture and politics and economy is part of the deal.
Methinks I detect just a hint of Schadenfreude in T99.
I would remind everyone the the left was as flat as a pancake 8 years ago. After Gore lost and
911 the Democrats were imploding.
Then along came Iraq. Iraq gave the left something to be against. It united the various factions by supplying something basic and simple to rally around (against). Once the bloom came off of Iraq the right was now at a disadvantage.
I precieve "comprehensve immigration reform" much the same way. It would give the right and white Americans a way to rally. That is very dangerous politically to the left. The last thing Obama wants to be is a failed one term President.
It's going to be just as tough a fight for Obama as it was for Bush. More so as the shine seems to be coming off.
I would think it would be harder for 0bama then, as the recession is going to make the populace waaaaaaay less sanguine than last time around.
How can it be true that so much of the “change” that we have had in recent decades has not been good?
You don't know how good it was before. You don't know what it was like to live in a real world, a world constructed of a sturdy fabric where the warp was kinship and the weft was meritocracy. I mourn it every day of my life. There is huge yawning chasm between those of us who remember and you who don't. I wish I could show you, I wish I could take you back home, but not as much I wish that I could go home.
Correction: It is "Service Employees International Union" -- (SEIU).
My mistake.
Then what parts of America are salvageable? the northeast? Alaska? As far as I know here are illegals in both places.
"Salvageable," as in a place you can run away to?
Forget it pal - I'm done running.
Preventing amnesty on the federal level is key to allowing local and state governments, which have even more incentive to be proactive, do their own thing.
The purpose isn't to build a utopia where they rule and can build their ideas, but to destroy the group they hate. I don't think there is a larger plan for the American Left after the destruction of America.
Some of the Left hates, indeed; but much of it - the part under the sway of the hateful part - is completely oblivious to the consequences of their actions and beliefs; and willfully oblivious to the motives of the hateful group.
They're in the grip of a religious or semi-religious hysteria. They generally believe in biological equality. They genuinely believe that, as the psychologist said, if you give a (very well funded) school system a kid, any kid, with the proper instruction you can make him into baker, lawyer, doctor, or thief. They genuinely believe that any failure to do so is proof positive of ill-intent ("racism") on someone's part. The odd thing is that these people mostly believe in evolution and they frequently don't even believe in God, yet somehow, some way, something managed to arrange it so that all human beings (or at least races) are exactly, biologically equal in every behavioral respect.
How they explain it I have no idea, but the contradictions are everywhere. It's this belief in "goodness" that is, ironically, filled with hate towards those who don't share it (because those who don't share it must be...)
And here's another big irony, as I see it: Barack Obama being half black somehow matters in the sense that we have a president who is, in his being, in some sense black. And yet these people don't believe in nature - so why would a half-black raised almost entirely in a white family (and never at all in a black one) have any way of being black, unless it was genetic? But of course then genes do matter when it comes to carrying and passing on the "legacy of slavery."
"Anonymous said...
I grew up in SF, and I am younger than Steve. I am 34. In my lifetime:
*complete loss of the old campy fun gay world and the end of the party. For example, when I was in high school, we all went to the Castro street party on Halloween. We ran around in our costumes higher than God and had a fantastic and completely safe time. Now, there are shootings."
Maybe that's because a lot of the old campy fun gays died of new, non-campy, un-fun venereal diseases. The result of an epic promiscuity and a flagrant disregard for biology.
Did it ever occur to you then, good liberal that you were, that a city dedicated mostly to indulging the desires of sybaritic revelers was not likely to be a city that could take care of it's business, or could be expected to endure? Probably not. Liberals never learn.
Frisco dug it's own grave. It'll get no mourning flowers from me.
our situation is better in almost every way than was the situation of 1955.
What's this "our?" Speaking as an Angeleno, I'd take 1955 over the mess we've got here now any day of the week.
Anonymous said...
"Salvageable," as in a place you can run away to?
Forget it pal - I'm done running.
I live in AZ about 100-150 miles north of the Mexican border. Recently my state just had its congressional delegation finally make the transition to a Democratic majority despite the immivasion. One of the losing Republicans ran anti-illegal alien ads in a majority White area and still lost to an Democrat. The reason this candidate lost is that the Whites in his district changed from the traditional local wealthy to Northerners who were attempting to flee themselves. These people moved here, but brought the political stupidity that ruined their home states with them.
Are there any states that have a government that is willing to oppose the Mexicanization of the United States? Any? Even Texas, in fact especially Texas, despite being the anchor state of the GOP is still pro-illegal. I would love to support an American first state, but as Texas demonstrates, almost none are willing to stand for Anglo-Whites. That was the point of my comment, there seems to be nowhere that will actually stop caving.
Did it ever occur to you then, good liberal that you were, that a city dedicated mostly to indulging the desires of sybaritic revelers was not likely to be a city that could take care of it's business, or could be expected to endure? Probably not. Liberals never learn.
Well, I was 16, so I think it's ok that I just wanted to go to a nice party, dude.
It seems possible that at some point---if no grassroots political sea change happens to shape things up first (which is a big "if")---the Mexicans will organize into powerful labor unions. With backing from the drug cartels.
The question is whether the rest of America will accept this. The question starts to become: how far can the American social contract be stretched before it cracks and pops?
There is major cognitive dissonance in the airwaves right now. The Left has it and the Right has it. The Right with its worship of Big Money has strayed far away from the Jeffersonian roots of this nation. The Left thinks it can re-play FDR's term but doesn't mention how a world war played into the economic nationalization of the 1930's. Seeing this cognitive dissonance is scary, because it means people are failing to cope with reality in rational ways.
"Even if we give up the southwest, what is to prevent this from repeating and losing another chunk of territory?
Snow.
I grew up in California and having moved away it's increasingly obvious that the Southwest has fallen because the weather is so good there, you never really have to think about the future.
In the frozen north, the feckless may be able to destroy the cities but they will never be able to survive anywhere they are responsible for remember to put coats on."
Wrong.
Ski resort Jackson Hole, Wyoming (pi**ing cold) is staffed almost solely by illegal aliens from Tlaxcala, Mexico
http://www.skinet.com/action/2009-02/faces-ski-town-immigrants
When Testing99 comes down off his high, here's the cloture vote on S. 1348 (the 2007 amnesty bill) shook out: 34 yeas, 61 nays - 26 votes less than needed, which is to say "not even close.". Now I'm not even gunna pretend that all the senators who voted against cloture actually opposed the bill. There was plenty of strategic voting: senators who knew the bill had lost and who didn't want the political risk of being labelled pro-amnesty, senators who were up for re-election, and so on. But there are always about 33 senators coming up for re-election, and this mid-term probably won't be looking good for any incumbent, least of all Democrats.
Once again: don't throw me in this brier patch. At worst we get what we're already getting: amnesty, slow motion or fast forward, not much difference. The latter may be better in that the effects will be that much more obvious. At best we get a victory, a rejuvenated GOP with a reason to live, a mass rejection of a policy that was always meant to impoverish Middle America, and Republican control of Congress with every reason to push enforcement.
We had two losers running for office as far as an amnesty was concerned.
As far as just about anything was concerned...
The odd thing is that these people mostly believe in evolution and they frequently don't even believe in God, yet somehow, some way, something managed to arrange it so that all human beings (or at least races) are exactly, biologically equal in every behavioral respect.
They say they believe in evolution, but arguably they don't. The evangelical Christians are just more honest. The leftists say they don't believe in God too, but echoes of old testament theology pervade their every utterance.
This is not meant to be a knock against those who believe in God. I myself am a squishy sort that believes in God, but further exposition of that would probably be off topic here. My point is that the leftists of today have their own set of mantras and blatantly supernatural beliefs, and many are filled with a passionate hatred for heretics. IMO genuiunely compassionate people would not hate those they disagreed with or at least would try hard not to.
Anyway let's not take the words of leftists at face value. I think we can get a sense of what it is they really believe when we study what they do as opposed to what they say.
Ski resort Jackson Hole, Wyoming (pi**ing cold) is staffed almost solely by illegal aliens from Tlaxcala, Mexico
Sun Valley, too - they all mostly live in Twin Falls and ride the bus every day, 75 miles each way. Same goes in Park City, Utah, and probably every other resort town in the country. No, they're plenty willing to live where the snow is, if they must.
Like I said, I'm done running.
My point is that the leftists of today have their own set of mantras and blatantly supernatural beliefs, and many are filled with a passionate hatred for heretics.
A remnant of religion, or proof that religious belief arises from human nature?
Anyway let's not take the words of leftists at face value. I think we can get a sense of what it is they really believe when we study what they do as opposed to what they say.
I think "higher causes" are the key. See, the sad creatures we refer to as liberals, leftists, etc., are told by their priests (television, etc.) that they are serving a higher cause. And their priests do an adequate job of making the delusion believable.
That's why they're pious, and conservatives aren't (except when they're serving higher causes, like ensuring the survival of Israel, fighting terrorists (but I repeat myself), etc.).
The herd is simply doing what it's told. "Thinking things through" has nothing to do with it. No one wants to think things through. They want to do their jobs, have some bread and circuses, and go to sleep so they can do it all again tomorrow. "Thinking things through" is too much like work, and can interfere with doing their jobs, enjoying bread and circuses, and getting a good night's sleep.
Hotel and restaurant establishments, including ski resorts, are businesses the O.-backed Service Employees International Union want to unionize, with the aid of O.-backed employee no-secret-ballot voting to vote for or against becoming union shops.
The SEIU is also a big agitator for open borders, or should I say no borders.
This linkage of amnesty for illegales with coerced unionization gives me faint hope that some Big Biznezzes may lose their enthusiasm for wide open borders.
This linkage of amnesty for illegales with coerced unionization gives me faint hope that some Big Biznezzes may lose their enthusiasm for wide open borders.
Indeed. EFCA doesn't get my dander up. Increasing the minimum wage doesn't get my dander up. The Big CoC's neofeudalist posture has driven this once fiscal-conservative away from the fold. I realized I was only there to get sheered then roasted on a spit.
They want to do their jobs, have some bread and circuses, and go to sleep so they can do it all again tomorrow. "Thinking things through" is too much like work, and can interfere with doing their jobs, enjoying bread and circuses, and getting a good night's sleep.
Svigor, you reveal your basement-dwelling Aspergian lack of any kind of human social life. Hardly anyone is living this life you describe. It's in your imagination. In the real world people are overworked, sleep deprived, and so prostrate with worry about the future and their children than they can't think. It isn't that they won't think at all. Sleep deprivation alone makes them incapable. Add in the constant production of cortisol from commuting and tv news and you have a population that has been effectively zombified.
In the real world people are overworked, sleep deprived, and so prostrate with worry about the future and their children than they can't think.
And that naturally follows from paying 50% of their income in taxes of various kinds. Hence why they work so hard, and worry about the future of their children.
And that naturally follows from paying 50% of their income in taxes of various kinds. Hence why they work so hard, and worry about the future of their children.
Plus the hidden tax of being required to commute. But losers like Svigor think they're fat dumb and happy.
One thing is for certain, Obama's Spending Spree is going to backfire on him, big-time.
Not gonna' work out for him.
He's created a bigger mess than I could ever have imagined. I followed everything he said during his Campaign, and then some, and he's doing everything he said he would do, Plus.
He's a Madman, that has created a Maniac's Nightmare.
He WILL get his Amnesty. It won't be any puney 14 million from the DREAM Act, it's going to be 40 million plus because of the Chain Migration.
He will then have 40 million new Social 'Entitlement' Program enrolles on Programs that pay ZERO taxes like good ole' SSI-Supplemental Security Income, that does nothing but DRAIN.
SSI and in California the additional cash check of SSP-State Supplemental Payments will be the Be All/End All.
Very rarely is SSI ever spoken of by ANY and ALL Politicians. That's because it's full of the 'bottom feeders' of sub-human existance.
NOT, the truely handicapped persons that are terribly disabled from birth, but the heroin addicts, meth addicts and of course alcoholics.
They are ALL on SSI. Most have NEVER worked a single day in their entire life. Just AFDC/TANF/CalWORKS until the 5year lifetime limit is up or General Assistance straight to SSI/SSP.
It's the African American 'Entitlement' of choice and is exactly WHY Obama is going to PROTECT it until there is not a penny left in the Federal Treasury or even under Obama's mattress!
This swelling, ballooning, bloating 'Entitlement' program for mental problems, Social problems as silly as Agoraphobia, fear of going out of your house, is all acceptable to get lifetime checks from the underling of Social Security, SSI.
SSI pays absolutely ZERO taxes, gets reimbursed for Rent or Property Tax each year. Recieve's extreme assistance for food, heating and air conditioning, and of course HUD for their housing needs. Pays absolutely ZERO co-pay or premium or deductable for EVERYTHING Medical, Dental, Vision, it's ALL free for SSI's.
Their ENTIRE Family get's a check when the 'Head of Household' get's an SSI check too. This includes, Grandma, Grandpaw, brother's, sister's, aunt's n' uncle's, cousin's, all the nino's, absolutely EVERYONE within that SSI Household get's a check. And, if they are not already IN the U.S., the Newly Legalized Illegal can Bring them IN, Legally, and get them on SSI as well.
This adds up to a very large Stack of Checks on the 1st of the month, every month.
They will ALL get absolutely Free/Gratis collega as well. That's like Fed-PELL & State-CalGRANT, $15,000 per year, per family member for full time, $700 a month for part=time.
This does NOT count either when they are on SSI. There's no means testing for their college GRANT money, house or Car. Does not count when figuring their monthly checks from SSI/SSP
They live FREE. They also are 'Judgement PROOF'. Can't touch their SSI checks for anything! This is how many Father's avoid Child Support.
Can put an Abstract of Judgment upon their paid for free and clear Real Estate, won't do any good, they will plead, "hardship" before the Liberal Judge that will feel sorry for the poor Disabled SSI recipient.
These are those toothless morbidly obese people on the 1st of each month, in their smelly cars with their handicapped placard on their rear view or plate.
They buy up the entire stores leaving virtually EMPTY on the 1st of each month.
Most according to stats from Heritage Foundation Org., shows that SSI's actually OWN their Homes, many Free & Clear, completely paid for.
There's NO Means Testing on their Real Estate and it's not uncommon to know someone in the wealthiest of neighborhoods living in a paid for estate and living on SSI and in California, SSP.
Pays well in California. $907 per Individual, $1,569 per couple.
SOME, Illegals can get SSI, but usually only for their ninos right now. The Mother WILL recieve SSI if the children are on SSI.
The BIG problem is the same as Welfare/AFDC/TANF/CalWORKS, the Father is NOT supposed to be anywhere around, and same goes for SSI & SSP. So the Father's don't usually ever get SSI/SSP unless they are over age 65.
When Obama legalizes the 14 million with DREAM, he's going to get MORE Democrats. But, this will not be the end of it. The 'Chain Migration' caused from the Newly Legalized will bring him in up to 40 million at least. I live in California, grew up in Los Angeles, and I assure you, the newly legalized will line up at ALL the SS Offices to Apply & Qualify for SSI & SSP.
Obama WILL get his lifetime Democrats, that will vote Straight Democrat all right.
However, NOBODY will get a check-in-the-box within 2 years after the 'Shamnesty'.
There's NOT going to be enough people Paying the Taxes INTO the General Fund to pay OUT all the New 'Entitlement' recipients, that DO NOT PAY TAXES.
A 100% complete DRAIN on the Treasury WORSE than ever before.
This WILL bring on the total monetary collapse.
This IS what Obama wants though:
http://tinyurl.com/6m7ufd
http://tinyurl.com/48htvg
http://tinyurl.com/dhrk9k
There's only going to be one way to get rid of the Democrats after Obama get's his 'Shamnesty' and Constituents he wants to be the FOREVER President.
It's going to take a total collapse from these same illegals that caused the 'Mortgage Meltdown' becoming legally allowed to DRAIN even MORE taxpayer money OUT, putting nothing IN.
It will be the wake-up call of the Century!
Post a Comment