Thursday, May 18, 2006


Illegal immigration is THE political topic in the USA at the moment and the recent "Have it both ways" speech by GWB will inflame the debate rather than douse it. I have not so far posted a lot on the topic as I live in a country that has a settled immigration policy that I and most others of my fellow citizens agree with. Some years ago, Australia's conservative government firmly reasserted control over our borders and we now have virtually no illegal immigrants. And since Australia has many thousands of miles of unguarded and mostly deserted coastline, that was not intrinsically easy. And we have far more poor Asians living to our immediate North than the USA has poor Hispanics to its South. So it seems completely obvious to me that the USA should and could control its borders too.

So why is it not happening? It is not happening because of an unholy alliance of Leftist Democrats and lassez faire Republicans. Leftists will support anything that tears down existing society and liberty-minded conservatives think government controls are mostly counterproductive. But there are liberties and liberties. Does a person have the liberty to decide who lives in his own home? Must he accept as a resident anyone who wanders into his house? Most people would say that a householder should be free to boot intruders out. And it seems to me that a nation should be similarly free.

But the time for that discussion is of course now long past. The egg has been scrambled. Half the babies now being born in the USA are "minority" babies. The USA is now a largely Hispanic nation and will steadily become more so even if effective border control measures are taken. So the already large numbers of Hispanics who vote will also grow. And NO political party can afford to alienate them. And although effective border control would not alienate ALL Hispanic voters, it would alienate many millions of them. And that would certainly be enough to swing an election.

So GWB has no choice. He has to go easy on Hispanic immigration or he will hand the next election to the Democrats. And much the same is true of Congress. There are substantial numbers of Hispanics in all States so many Congressmen would lose their jobs if Hispanics turned solidly against them.

So Americans no longer have much choice about the future ethnic composition of their country. It has been settled. The only choice is whether the USA will become rapidly more Hispanic (which is what will happen if the Democrats get control) or whether it slowly becomes more Hispanic (if GWB's policies prevail). There is no third option that would win an election.

So is that a good thing? Is the future of the USA clouded by its demographic transformation? It seems unlikely to be a big problem. Non-Hispanic whites will go on doing what they have always done -- leading the world in most spheres of endeavour -- and most Hispanics will probably have learnt enough from growing up in America not to support the Fascist political policies that regularly prevail in Latin America.

An increased level of crime may be one adverse result from the Hispanic influx but high crime levels are largely a reflection of poor policing and a lenient criminal justice system so that can be fixed whenever there is a public will to do so. Similarly, the burden of giving free medical care and schooling to illegals could be ended by requiring proof of citizenship first -- but there is virtually no will for that.

In the present, the Hispanic influx undoubtedly lowers wages at the bottom end of the market but there are both winners and losers from that.

Is there anything that non-Hispanic whites can do if they want America to remain predominantly non-Hispanic? Just one thing: Have babies.



Bill permits 193 million more aliens by 2026: "The Senate immigration reform bill would allow for up to 193 million new legal immigrants -- a number greater than 60 percent of the current U.S. population -- in the next 20 years, according to a study released yesterday. "The magnitude of changes that are entailed in this bill -- and are largely unknown -- rival the impact of the creation of Social Security or the creation of the Medicare program," said Robert Rector, senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation who conducted the study. Although the legislation would permit 193 million new immigrants in the next two decades, Mr. Rector estimated that it is more likely that about 103 million new immigrants actually would arrive in the next 20 years."

Your bureaucracy will protect you: "The Home Office has abandoned hope of finding hundreds of thousands of failed asylum seekers, its most senior enforcement officer admitted yesterday. In a shockingly frank series of answers to MPs, Dave Roberts said he didn't have the 'faintest idea' how many were at large. Mr Roberts is director of enforcement and removals at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, which polices migration into Britain on behalf of the Home Office. Coming from such an authoritative source, the comments exposed more starkly than ever the hopeless inadequacy of the asylum system".

Ward Churchill found guilty: "A University of Colorado investigative committee found deliberate and serious misconduct by ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill, including plagiarism, fabrication, and "serious deviation from accepted practices in reporting results from research," according to a report made public today. The committee also noted Churchill was "disrespectful of Indian oral traditions" when he wrote the U.S. government distributed blankets infested with smallpox to Mandan Indians in 1837 on the Upper Missouri River. Three of the five members of the committee said the transgressions were serious enough that CU could revoke Churchill's tenure and fire him. But two of those three said the most appropriate sanction would be a five-year suspension without pay. See also here

Supreme Court won't block lesbian "parent's" rights: "In a Washington state case, the U.S. Supreme Court refused today to block a gay woman from seeking parental rights to a child she had helped raise with her partner. Justices could have used the case to clarify the rights of gays in child custody disputes stemming from nontraditional families. They declined, without comment, to disturb a ruling of Washington state's highest court that said Sue Ellen Carvin could pursue ties to the girl as a 'de facto parent.' The girl is now 11. The case had brought a contentious issue to a court that has shied away from gay rights disputes. Lawyers for the girl's biological mother, Page Britain, told justices that the state court decision in this case and others around the country 'pave the way for children to have an unlimited and ever-changing number of parents.' Carvin's attorneys had said the court has never agreed to hear a case involving parenting or visitation disputes arising from same-sex relationships.



"All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State." -- 19th century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel is the most influential philosopher of the Left -- inspiring Karl Marx, the American "Progressives" of the early 20th century and university socialists to this day.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch)

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Pages are here or here or here.


No comments: