John W. Perry on Immigration
John W. Perry writes:
Well, shifting from the topic of media bias, where I think that you and I (along with John G.) "agree to disagree," I wonder what you think of illegal immigration?
One would think that the party divisions on this would be clear i.e., that liberals favor amnesty and conservatives favor deportation. Yet I don't think that's a fair division. I think businessmen, whatever their stripe, favor amnesty to illegals. Yet I think that this amnesty is creating a balkanized social structure with HUGE hidden costs -- largely due to the Mexican population.
BV: I agree with you, John. Liberal attitudes are only part of the problem here. Liberals favor amnesty because they have no respect for the rule of law, and because they allow their emotions to swamp their reason; many people who are otherwise conservative favor amnesty because of their lust for the quick profits made possible by the cheap labor that illegal aliens provide. And you are right about the threat of balkanization. I sometimes wonder how long before the USA becomes the BSA (Balkanized States of America).
In California, it is estimated that health services to illegal aliens cost several BILLION dollars a year. Their crime rates are far higher than the general population which means that the State also pays for their maintenance in the prison system.
BV: You are absolutely right. And think of what a waste of tax money is involved in the printing of voter materials in Spanish. That in itself is an outrage, and I cannot understand how anyone can be so dumb as not to see what is wrong with it. I was standing in line at a bank the other day, and there was a sign that read: Entrada. Now if I know what that means, not having studied Spanish, why can't Mexicans learn the English equivalent? And then there is bilingual education, another outrage. Perhaps you can understand from this why I honestly believe that liberals in general are intellectually or morally obtuse. (That is an inclusive 'or': we must be inclusive, mustn't we?)
I am also unsettled by the balkanized social structure. Mexicans stick with Mexicans, Indians with Indians, Chinese with Chinese, etc.. Of course, in "polite" company, even raising the issue of immigration is declasse because it is perilously close to the issue of RACE. And in the educational system, "diversity" is celebrated even though it is a sham because of the lack of true assimilation and mixing.
BV: I couldn't have said it better myself. You're no liberal, John. You are too intelligent to be a liberal. What you are is a conservative who is opposed to corporate greed. Well, me too!
Diversity can be enriching, but only within a context of unity. Liberals, however, appear to have no appreciation whatsoever of the counterbalancing value of unity. Most talk of diversity nowadays is phony because what is intended is politically correct diversity: Libs want a diversity that excludes dissent. Their inclusivity is a sham that excludes people who question their assumptions. It is the kind of idiotic diversity that thinks that a gangbanger is on the same moral plane as a medical student, or that defacing public property with spray paint is a form of 'art.' These people are quite hopeless. They cannot be engaged rationally, because they have allowed what little reason they possess to be swamped by emotion.
As for RACE, I'm not sure I would touch that topic with an eleven foot pole -- which is the pole I use to touch things with that I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Blacks, I am afraid, are their own worst enemy. Nice white boys like you and me -- we don't want to hurt them black folk none. We be for 'em, not agin' 'em. Ever watch Black Entertainment Television? People who watch that crap will always be on the bottom. And then there is the reparations issue -- but I'll save that for later.
As to "diversity", I often point out a simple truth which is very discomfitting to Liberals: The stereos, cars, computers, cellphones, DVDs, and televisions that Third Worlders all clamor to buy are all inventions of the Honkie. That being said, some cultures I have no truck with -- I trust that the Chinese and Indians will assimilate over time and their cultures respect intellect and civility.
Of course, you are right. Where would all the thug rappers be if Whitey hadn't done the hard-core science and engineering that makes possible the technology wherewith their evil garbage is spewed across the land? Are you aware of the etymology of 'honkie'? It is from Bohunk, a derogatory expression for Polish- or Hungarian Americans, an expression which is a blend of Bohemian and Hungarian. Bohunks were also called Hungies, or Hunkies, and black workers in the Chicago meat-packing plants mis-pronounced this as Honkie, which soon became a derisive term for all whites. (Robert Hendrickson, Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, p. 356.)
The Mexicans are another story. I find them anti-intellectual and their achievement (or, rather, lack thereof) in schools would back this claim. Their crime rates in California are four times the State average. Indeed, the Mexican infiltration is one large reason that I plan to retire in a state where this infiltration is minimal -- which means a colder climate.
BV: Indeed. Trouble is, anyone who points out facts like these is labelled a racist. The PC types can't wrap their minds around the elementary distinction between a racist statement and a statement the content of which is racial.
As long as cheap labor is the only thing valued by the business community, I see no stanching of the huge influx of Mexicans to Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. Patrick Buchanan refers to Los Angeles as "The Capitol of Mexifornia". Although Mr. Buchanan is a far right Conservative, I have always respected his views on immigration and its usurpation by the business community.
Mexico is a country with a sorry history and an even sorrier present.
Until their citizens and representatives show some willingness to value
attributes that most of the civilized world values, I think we ought to
shut those borders.
BV: We need to take seriously Buchanan's proposal of a moratorium on all immigration, legal and illegal. I'll end with an anecdote. On the morning of 9/11/01, I returned from a bike ride and switched on the TV in time to see one of the Islamo-hijacked planes crash into one of the Trade Towers. I said to my wife: "Well, there are two good things about this: Gary Condit will be out of the news for good, and something will now be done about immigration." Unfortunately, I was right about only one of my predictions. I am afraid we need a few more 9/11's to jerk us out of our complacency.
In the meantime, and in the words of Lenin, what is to be done?