Whose Country Is This Anyway?

[Adam's Apple]

Lots of good questions posed by Cal Thomas.

Whose Country . . .
By Cal Thomas, The Washington Times
March 29, 2006

Observing the pro-immigration demonstrations in Phoenix, Los Angeles, Atlanta and elsewhere in recent days, I wondered: Whose country is this? Why are many illegal aliens who broke our laws to get here and who continue to break our laws to stay here, demanding that the United States not only allow them to remain, but support them with the taxes of law-abiding citizens? Have we gone mad?

"Thousands Rally For Immigrants' Rights" read a headline about the Phoenix march. What rights? If they are here illegally, they have the right to leave. They have no rights under our Constitution, anymore than I might expect the rights of a Mexican citizen should I choose to live illegally in Mexico. Marchers in Los Angeles carried Mexican flags, which should tell us about their primary allegiance.

There were work stoppages and school walkouts. Every person who left school or job should be required to prove they are in America legally. If they cannot, or will not, they should be deemed illegals and deported.

Immigration is developing into a major political issue. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, made a bid for the votes of illegals and their enablers last week. Mrs. Clinton promised to fight a bill passed by the House in December and debated this week in the Senate. It would subject illegals, and those who knowingly employ them, to criminal penalties. Invoking biblical justification for her opposition to the House measure, Mrs. Clinton said it "is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures, because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably Jesus himself."

Democrats have been trying to make inroads on religious language and religious symbolism from the near-monopoly held by Republicans. But, like Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean, who once spoke of the Old Testament book of Job as his favorite New Testament book, Mrs. Clinton misfired. In the parable told by Jesus, robbers set upon a man, beat him, and left him "half dead." A priest and a Levite passed by, refusing to help the victim. A Samaritan, despised by the Jews, stopped to help the man and also paid an innkeeper from his own pocket to care for him (Luke 10:30-37).

Notice that Jesus didn't call on a government program for help. As for how this relates to illegal immigration, Jesus never counseled breaking laws.

Here is the real problem with illegal immigration. Many Americans believe we are losing our unique national identity. Census Bureau figures indicate the Washington, D.C., regional population will become "majority minority" in less than a decade. The biggest influx between 2000 and 2004 was among Hispanics, a considerable number believed to be here illegally.

The same demographic profile is reflected, or will soon be reflected, in many other major metropolitan areas and, in the case of California, an entire state. It isn't race or ethnicity that bothers most legal residents of this country. It is our failure to make non-hyphenated Americans out of them. Instead of becoming English-speaking Americans, too many are retaining the language, customs, culture and political agendas of their native lands. No nation can long survive such an invasion without assimilation.

Forty-two states are currently considering bills related to immigration policy, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Nineteen of these states would restrict public benefits for illegals. Congress should act to create some uniformity.

A "guest worker" provision for those already here might work, but there should be restrictions on how long they can stay and a requirement that they return home before applying for legal admittance. Accompanied by much tighter control of our borders, such an approach would be in America's best interests. And could we please put this country's best interests first for a change?

Under no circumstance should there be amnesty for illegals, by whatever name politicians wish to call it. New illegal immigrants should not be allowed in until those already here are either fully and legally assimilated, or sent home when their work permits expire.

Too many politicians appear ready to sell the security of their country for the votes of illegals and their supporters. They must not be allowed to do so. Illegal immigration, along with national security, which are related, should be the top issues in the 2006 and especially 2008 elections.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060328-102543-7737r.htm

 

[dilloduck]

Lots of good questions posed by Cal Thomas.

Whose Country . . .
By Cal Thomas, The Washington Times
March 29, 2006

Observing the pro-immigration demonstrations in Phoenix, Los Angeles, Atlanta and elsewhere in recent days, I wondered: Whose country is this? Why are many illegal aliens who broke our laws to get here and who continue to break our laws to stay here, demanding that the United States not only allow them to remain, but support them with the taxes of law-abiding citizens? Have we gone mad?

"Thousands Rally For Immigrants' Rights" read a headline about the Phoenix march. What rights? If they are here illegally, they have the right to leave. They have no rights under our Constitution, anymore than I might expect the rights of a Mexican citizen should I choose to live illegally in Mexico. Marchers in Los Angeles carried Mexican flags, which should tell us about their primary allegiance.

There were work stoppages and school walkouts. Every person who left school or job should be required to prove they are in America legally. If they cannot, or will not, they should be deemed illegals and deported.

Immigration is developing into a major political issue. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, made a bid for the votes of illegals and their enablers last week. Mrs. Clinton promised to fight a bill passed by the House in December and debated this week in the Senate. It would subject illegals, and those who knowingly employ them, to criminal penalties. Invoking biblical justification for her opposition to the House measure, Mrs. Clinton said it "is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures, because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably Jesus himself."

Democrats have been trying to make inroads on religious language and religious symbolism from the near-monopoly held by Republicans. But, like Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean, who once spoke of the Old Testament book of Job as his favorite New Testament book, Mrs. Clinton misfired. In the parable told by Jesus, robbers set upon a man, beat him, and left him "half dead." A priest and a Levite passed by, refusing to help the victim. A Samaritan, despised by the Jews, stopped to help the man and also paid an innkeeper from his own pocket to care for him (Luke 10:30-37).

Notice that Jesus didn't call on a government program for help. As for how this relates to illegal immigration, Jesus never counseled breaking laws.

Here is the real problem with illegal immigration. Many Americans believe we are losing our unique national identity. Census Bureau figures indicate the Washington, D.C., regional population will become "majority minority" in less than a decade. The biggest influx between 2000 and 2004 was among Hispanics, a considerable number believed to be here illegally.

The same demographic profile is reflected, or will soon be reflected, in many other major metropolitan areas and, in the case of California, an entire state. It isn't race or ethnicity that bothers most legal residents of this country. It is our failure to make non-hyphenated Americans out of them. Instead of becoming English-speaking Americans, too many are retaining the language, customs, culture and political agendas of their native lands. No nation can long survive such an invasion without assimilation.

Forty-two states are currently considering bills related to immigration policy, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Nineteen of these states would restrict public benefits for illegals. Congress should act to create some uniformity.

A "guest worker" provision for those already here might work, but there should be restrictions on how long they can stay and a requirement that they return home before applying for legal admittance. Accompanied by much tighter control of our borders, such an approach would be in America's best interests. And could we please put this country's best interests first for a change?

Under no circumstance should there be amnesty for illegals, by whatever name politicians wish to call it. New illegal immigrants should not be allowed in until those already here are either fully and legally assimilated, or sent home when their work permits expire.

Too many politicians appear ready to sell the security of their country for the votes of illegals and their supporters. They must not be allowed to do so. Illegal immigration, along with national security, which are related, should be the top issues in the 2006 and especially 2008 elections.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060328-102543-7737r.htm

 

[Adam's Apple]

We should hold our elected reps' feet to the fire until they resolve this problem to the people's satisfaction.

The website www.numbersusa.com has a campaign going on to defeat the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill. If you have an interest, check it out. For those who don't like to write to their elected reps directly, they give concerned voters the opportunity to join their campaign.

 

[Avatar4321]

Whose country is this anyway? It's mine. I bought it this morning. Gave Ted Kennedy some beer and he was more than willing to support the sale. I mean he was already planning to sell us out to the terrorist, but with my offer he got alcohol

 

[007]

We should hold our elected reps' feet to the fire until they resolve this problem to the people's satisfaction.

The website www.numbersusa.com has a campaign going on to defeat the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill. If you have an interest, check it out. For those who don't like to write to their elected reps directly, they give concerned voters the opportunity to join their campaign.

That website must be real busy. It wouldn't open for me, but I'll try it later.

Thanks for the great article AA, and the link.

Lots of good reading here too... http://www.alipac.us/

 

[archangel]

Some group with great organizational skills should organize a National Boycott for the up-comming Cinco de Mayo celebrations...send a message that there will be no Mexican revolution in America! Just a thought... :cof:

ps: Maybe 'Taco Bell' too!

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Some group with great organizational skills should organize a National Boycott for the up-comming Cinco de Mayo celebrations...send a message that there will be no Mexican revolution in America! Just a thought... :cof:

ps: Maybe 'Taco Bell' too!

That's not bad. I don't know about boycotts, but American's could have a May the Fifth celebration. Have cookouts with steaks, hot dogs, and hamburgers, a little apple pie for desert. Around here we'll have to crank up the stereo to drown out the bomp-bomp music, too.

 

[Hobbit]

I used to give lip service to Cinco de Mayo, but no more. I'm getting really upset about this, and it's making me incredibly hostile towards Mexico and everything from it. If somebody doesn't do something, and quick, there will be blood, because I consider this a foreign invasion, and although the government isn't currently holding me to this oath, I once swore to defend the Consititution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

My family hasn't been defending this country for 300 years to see it invaded by a bunch of uneducated cheap labor due only to the fact that nobody's willing to stop it.

 

[shepherdboy]

We should hold our elected reps' feet to the fire until they resolve this problem to the people's satisfaction.

The website www.numbersusa.com has a campaign going on to defeat the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill. If you have an interest, check it out. For those who don't like to write to their elected reps directly, they give concerned voters the opportunity to join their campaign.

This issue really makes me sick. Some of those high school kids in Southern California were burning the American flag and flying the Mexican flag. Yea that makes sense. Fly the flag of Mexico? The very country that is screwing the poor and making the wealthy more wealthier.

I keep hearing if for an example if you sent home the illegal immigrants who pick tomatoes and replace them with American workers at a higher wage the price of tomatoes will go through the roof. OK so let use illegal immigrants to drill and refine oil into gas so we can pay a dollar for gasoline at the pump. You think the market will react to that? Hell No! So why would it be any different for tomatoes? Is it a free market, or is it?

Now for the political side. God help us on this one. The Democrats want the social programs to keep them in office with the votes. The Republicans want more capital with a lower paying work force. The middle class of the United States is shrinking into obvious. Don't get me wrong, I support capitalism and the free market. But you got to have checks and balances. Especially from those in corporate America who would sell their mothers souls to the devil to make an extra buck. People, we get to take back this country and turn the tide. If left unchecked, our children's children will not recognize this country for what it was. "The land of the free and the home of the brave."

 

[Annie]

http://jewishworldreview.com/0306/hanson033006.php3

Assimilation is the real debate

By Victor Davis Hanson


http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Hypocrisy and paradoxes abound when it comes to illegal immigration.


Even the fiercest critics of illegal immigrants in the American Southwest never seem to check first the legal status of those who fix their roofs, mow their lawns or wash their dishes.


This past week, thousands of Hispanic demonstrators, fearful of strict new immigration laws, chanted "Mexico" and for some reason waved the flag of the country they fled from and most certainly do not want to return to.


Increasingly, Latin American governments have elected vocal anti-American politicians — even as they count on their citizens leaving for the U.S. in record numbers.


The Mexican government seeks to entice wealthy retired Americans to build homes south of the U.S. border, even as it exports its own homeless to this country. What a cynical mindset: "You take our Mexican poor, we'll take your American rich."


Opponents of illegal immigration lament the skyrocketing costs of incarcerating thousands of illegal immigrants, and providing health benefits to many others. They ignore that such public-entitlement costs are partially offset by the private subsidy that the cheap labor amounts to.


On the other hand, supporters of the status quo tend only to cite statistics showing how illegal immigrants prop up the American economy — as if workers who have little education, less English and no legal status will not get ill, hurt or in trouble.


Illegal immigration is so embedded in issues of history, exploitation, race, class and money that the mere discussion of it has a way of turning surreal.


So we talk of a guest-worker program as if the million willing Mexicans a year who won't qualify for it will smile and stay home. And, even for those who do qualify, a guest-worker program is a bad idea, for it perpetuates the notion of "good enough to work, not good enough to stay." We should evolve from, not institutionalize, the two-tiered system of "them and us."


We also talk of deportation as if it were feasible to send back 11 million people to Mexico in the largest population movement since the British partition of India.


And we don't talk of the greatest collective violation of American immigration laws in our history.


But there is still a solution to the immigration problem: It involves supporting any practice that leads to the assimilation of legal Mexican immigrants into the American mainstream — and opposing everything that does not.


Employers and La Raza activists who thrive on the current non-system might not like that approach, but it is the only way to avoid the gathering political and cultural storm.


As we've seen from second- and third-generation legal immigrants, when a person from Mexico comes to the U.S. with legal documentation, learns English and regards an unskilled job as the start, not the end, of a career, success most often follows.


And when immigrants, of all nationalities, finds themselves surrounded by others from all over the world, they generally accept English as our vital bond and see that a common culture, not race, is what matters.


Second, numbers are important. The U.S. can assimilate hundreds of thousands of Mexicans, as it does with other immigrant groups, who come legally and are integrated throughout the nation in multiethnic neighborhoods. But it cannot assimilate quickly millions of abject poor who live in apartheid communities. There the joy of reaching the U.S. is replaced by the bitterness of becoming part of its collective underclass.


Third, immigrants can survive one strike against them, maybe two — but not three. A Mexican citizen who is here illegally might do well with fluent English and a high-school diploma. But when one is illegal, not fluent in English and without education — and immersed with millions who share such disadvantages — then we witness the sort of raw emotion now on display in Congress and on our streets.


So, given these realities, we should allow those illegal immigrants who have been living and working here for at least five years to start their citizenship process. But we should insist this be a one-time exemption rather than yet another periodic amnesty that encourages others to break the law and unfairly cut ahead in the immigration line.


Meanwhile, border enforcement, employer sanctions, walls and more officers to prevent illegal immigration will work, but only if we allow Mexico a generous quota of legal immigrants.


The real immigration debate is about turning legal arrivals into citizens. But we cannot do that until we work with those already here — and ensure that others in the future come legally and in measured numbers and so don't repeat the shared mistakes of our past.


Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and military historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

 

[Shaggy]

I used to give lip service to Cinco de Mayo, but no more. I'm getting really upset about this, and it's making me incredibly hostile towards Mexico and everything from it. If somebody doesn't do something, and quick, there will be blood, because I consider this a foreign invasion, and although the government isn't currently holding me to this oath, I once swore to defend the Consititution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

My family hasn't been defending this country for 300 years to see it invaded by a bunch of uneducated cheap labor due only to the fact that nobody's willing to stop it.

Its thanks to the Mexican Army and the battle of Pueblo on cinco de mayo that the union army defeated the confederacy, ending the civil war.

Might wanna rethink bad mouthing that holiday, considering it helped shape the United States.

http://www.vivacincodemayo.org/history.htm

 

[dilloduck]

Its thanks to the Mexican Army and the battle of Pueblo on cinco de mayo that the union army defeated the confederacy, ending the civil war.

Might wanna rethink bad mouthing that holiday, considering it helped shape the United States.

http://www.vivacincodemayo.org/history.htm

You're crazy if you think Mexicans were the reason the American civil war ended. It's obviously some nice rationalization that you have worked out in your head byt that's all it is, Shag.

 

[Shaggy]

You're crazy if you think Mexicans were the reason the American civil war ended. It's obviously some nice rationalization that you have worked out in your head byt that's all it is, Shag.

rationalization? Where did you guys go to school? This is basic high school history folks. The French HATED the US. They were hell bent on making sure the Confederacy prevailed in the Civil War. They were going to use Mexico as the base to reinforce the southern forces. Get your knowledge up people.

The French realized their forces were inadequate to their intended task, and were eventually reinforced with an additional 30,000 troops. In 1863 the French again marched towards Mexico City – this time bypassing Puebla on their route – and succeeded in taking the capital and installing the puppet regime of Emperor Maximilian.

While the Battle of Puebla did not stop the French takeover of Mexico, it was nonetheless an important victory for the Mexicans. It greatly raised Mexican morale and strengthened their determination to resist the invasion. It gave the Juárez government more time to prepare, and while they were forced to abandon Mexico City and retreat to the north of the country, they continued to maintain a working government which was recognized as the legitimate government of Mexico by many foreign nations, and eventually succeeded in defeating Maximilian and his allies in 1867.

The Battle of Puebla was also of historic importance in that it quashed Napoleon III's hopes of a quick takeover of Mexico, which he was planning to use as a base to aid the Confederates in the American Civil War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Puebla

 

[dilloduck]

rationalization? Where did you guys go to school? This is basic high school history folks. The French HATED the US. They were hell bent on making sure the Confederacy prevailed in the Civil War. They were going to use Mexico as the base to reinforce the southern forces. Get your knowledge up people.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Puebla

You can't base shit on some hypothetical battle that may have occured between French and Union forces.

 

[archangel]

rationalization? Where did you guys go to school? This is basic high school history folks. The French HATED the US. They were hell bent on making sure the Confederacy prevailed in the Civil War. They were going to use Mexico as the base to reinforce the southern forces. Get your knowledge up people.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Puebla

The French supported us during the War of 1812..."Battle of New Orleans" Andy Jackson won the war not the French...and again the Civil War was won through attrition...not Taco Bell!

 

[Shaggy]

The French supported us during the War of 1812..."Battle of New Orleans" Andy Jackson won the war not the French...and again the Civil War was won through attrition...not Taco Bell!

racist

 

[archangel]

racist

I happen to have more Hispanic blood then you will ever have...and "Taco Bell" sucks big time bro...I make a mean Taco! :tng:

 

[Gunny]

Its thanks to the Mexican Army and the battle of Pueblo on cinco de mayo that the union army defeated the confederacy, ending the civil war.

Might wanna rethink bad mouthing that holiday, considering it helped shape the United States.

http://www.vivacincodemayo.org/history.htm

Ar you for real?

The siege of Richmond and Petersburg, and Lee's subsequent abandonment thereof, and surrender at Appomatox effectively ended the US Civil War.

Joe Johnston has not yet surrendered, and here and there other units had not surrendered, but effective, organized resistance as a sovereign nation ended At Appomatox.

And some cheesy little battle of Pueblo didn't have JACK to do with it.

I think we should celebrate the Battle of San Jacinto Day ... you know ... when Sam Houston kicked the snot out of a supposedly superior army and nabbed his eminence, Th eNapolean of the West trying to sneak off in a Private's uniform?

 

[dilloduck]

Ar you for real?

The siege of Richmond and Petersburg, and Lee's subsequent abandonment thereof, and surrender at Appomatox effectively ended the US Civil War.

Joe Johnston has not yet surrendered, and here and there other units had not surrendered, but effective, organized resistance as a sovereign nation ended At Appomatox.

And some cheesy little battle of Pueblo didn't have JACK to do with it.

I think we should celebrate the Battle of San Jacinto Day ... you know ... when Sam Houston kicked the snot out of a supposedly superior army and nabbed his eminence, Th eNapolean of the West trying to sneak off in a Private's uniform?

LMAO--I figured you'd love this dude !

 

[Gunny]

rationalization? Where did you guys go to school? This is basic high school history folks. The French HATED the US. They were hell bent on making sure the Confederacy prevailed in the Civil War. They were going to use Mexico as the base to reinforce the southern forces. Get your knowledge up people.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Puebla

Let me ask YOU the same. Obviously history is above and beyond your comprehension level. The CSA were courting the support of England, not France.

What France was or was not going to do that they did not is as irelevant as your little skirmish you have declared the deciding factor in the US Civil War.

If YOU are indication of what revisionist history is nowadays, God help us ALL.