- My friend Dr. Diana Hull, living in the midst of California's
cultural, linguistic and population fiasco-talks about the serious consequences
of injecting America's cultural norms with antagonistic foreign paradigms.
You may find her work at www.TheSocialContract.com.
-
- "The majority of Americans want border safety, immigration
laws enforced, and power to decide how many immigrants to welcome each
year," said Hull. "Immigrant-sending countries, particularly
Mexico, still brazenly push their poorest citizen's north, while encouraging
them to maintain their Mexican identity.
-
- "Yet an ongoing and hardly covert U.S. open borders
policy was officially blessed in the plan promoted by George Bush, Vicente
Fox, and Robert Pastor in late 2001, to convert NAFTA into a North American
Union, providing for the free movement of people and trade between the
U.S., Canada, and Mexico, based on the model of the European Union. After
strenuous objections to this idea, President Bush and members of Congress
later denied the existence of this plan.
-
- "Nonetheless, the successful planning for NAFTA
itself had come four years earlier, after the 1986 amnesty, which was a
total failure by any measure. It is a strong possibility that the failure
was purposeful and that it was never intended that employer sanctions be
enforced. NAFTA was certainly incompatible with any interest in border
security and the employer sanctions provision in the 1986 amnesty bill.
-
- "But NAFTA and the proposed North American Union
were consistent with President Bush's support of the 2005 McCain/ Kennedy
bill (S. 1033), which encouraged "partnerships to establish a North
American security perimeter and improve security south of Mexico,"
while providing for no effective border control strategy for the U.S.
-
- "In the meantime, strong opposition to ensuring
U.S. border security has been openly pushed for years, going back to at
least the early 1980s, and often taking the form of bilateral commissions
with the focus solely on the treatment of aliens, never the best interests
of American citizens.
-
- A very strong voice in this discussion of immigrant rights
has been that of those who promote the widely accepted "stolen lands"
theory, which tens of thousands of Chicano Studies educators from K-12
to higher education depend upon to stir up anti-American and open borders
sentiment. Rudolph Acuna's Occupied America has been one of Harper
& Row's best-selling textbooks for years and is one of many texts giving
credence to these ideas.
-
- "But Mexico, the country that benefits most from
open borders via remittances and being able to export their least educated,
unemployed, and most restless young, uses open borders to establish a beachhead
of Mexican nationals in the U.S., where they are much more valuable than
if they stayed home.
-
- "Mexico's invasion of the U.S. employs appropriate
tactics for a nation much weaker and less stable politically, financially,
and militarily than its neighboring adversary.
-
- "By using stealth, faux friendship, and U.S. greed
for cheap labor, Mexico is as determined to be an invading force in the
effort to overturn, at least figuratively, the intent and purpose of the
1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, much as Hitler was determined to overturn
the territorial provisions of the Versailles Treaty.
-
- "But unlike the situation in Europe in the late
1930s and unlike the situation today, at the time California was Mexican
territory, that country's hold on what was then an undeveloped frontier
province was exceedingly "thin"3; there were approximately 20,000
Mexican nationals in all of Texas in 1832 at the time of Sam Houston's
victory for Texas independence at the battle of San Jacinto.
-
- "Yet the "retaking" idea has still taken
hold and been taught to young people, making the perfect subtext for open
borders, supporting Mexico's claim to much of the U.S. Southwest. Keeping
the border open is plainly just, it is claimed, because all of this territory
was once part of Mexico.
-
- And the places that were once Mexico include not only
California, Texas, and New Mexico, but also a vast swath north to Washington
State.
-
- "So the right of the U.S. to control who enters
this country, especially from Mexico, has been under attack for a very
long time, helped immeasurably in that virtually all of those involved
in higher education have given their blessing to Chicano Studies departments
and their Reconquista agenda.
-
- "The stolen land theme is even more widely accepted
in Mexico itself. And the situation in many border towns testifies to an
already existing de facto merger of the two countries, for which neither
armies nor treaties were necessary.
-
- "The stolen lands theory is also why Mexican President
Calderon and others before him don't even try to justify why Mexico has
every right to turn back illegal aliens trying to enter Mexico from the
south, but America has no such right to have the same kind of policy. In
Mexico, Central and South Americans are treated very badly when caught,
arrested, and promptly deported.
-
- "The U.S. also ignores that this double standard
even exists, although Mexico has exactly the kind of enforcement policy
the U.S. needs, but one that we would consider outrageously harsh.
-
- Yet this difference in policy is never discussed when
the Mexican government insists on good treatment for its illegal residents
in the U.S. Why? Is it really impertinent to bring this up, or do U.S.
policy makers also really want the flow of Mexican illegal workers to continue
indefinitely?
-
- Since the amnesty of 1986 was a failure, the word amnesty
is now out of bounds and considered pejorative, mostly because the opposition
to amnesty has such a large and growing constituency. To its proponents,
amnesty is "forgiveness," and they don't need permission to come
back to a place they believe they have every right to reclaim.
-
- "We should focus our attention instead on the truth
that supporters of the euphemistic term ''comprehensive reform" actually
consider open access to the U.S. their right, and that this substitute
language is a route to success, by claiming their agenda has more breadth
and depth than simply legalizing all the illegals already here.
-
- "The problem for us is the extent to which Americans
have accepted this inoffensive sounding but meaningless phrase, "comprehensive
reform." It is no more of a solution, by sounding more nuanced and
sophisticated, than simply asking for an up or down vote on amnesty.
-
- "Rather it is actually a recognition by proponents
of legalization that in the present climate asking for another amnesty
is a non-starter for sure. And by adding the word comprehensive, there
is the slightest hint that other factors like border security could stand
some chance of being included.
-
-
- "But don't count on it. With "comprehensive
reform," enforcement of our laws will go the route of the 1986 employer
sanctions requirement.
-
- "Even supporters of border security, like some on
Fox News, seem to accept the deception that "comprehensive reform"
has some positive meaning and is a possible solution to the 12 million
illegals - the better estimate is 20 to 30 million - or foreign nationals,
too many, it is claimed, to insist they go home. Evenfriendly TV commentators
like Bill O'Reilly agonize endlessly about the possibility of deportation.
-
- "But even those who want to be open-minded about
solutions will point out that many illegals have "American children."
Unfortunately, they need to better understand the Fourteenth Amendment
and its history, which is almost never discussed on TV.
-
- "The real problem with the "comprehensive reform"
terminology is that it has morphed into a slogan and is now "embedded"
language. It certainly sounds like something everyone should want, right?
And "comprehensive reform" is so general it could be applied
to thousands of issues or existing problems or policies that warrant rethinking.
So the term has acquired positive "baggage."
-
- "No matter what change is being considered, it should
be thorough, not inadequate, nor slipshod, right? That means "comprehensive."
And any "reform" should by definition make things better, right?
But better for whom?
-
- "The actual meanings of these two words "comprehensive
" and "reform" are both too general and too vague. They
are bland in the extreme and so unprovocative they can't offend anyone.
The question is whether this artful two-word phrase is an accurate description
of what is actually planned.
-
- "Unfortunately, this seemingly positive yet amorphous
goal has now morphed into a topic-specific, stand-alone, positive meaning
that is widely accepted.
-
- "Comprehensive reform, whatever its literal meaning,
will absolutely move us in the wrong direction if passed. It actually means
making legal residents of the 12 to 30 million illegal aliens now present
in the U.S.
-
- "So instead let's have a clear goal, reject a purported
solution absent of substance, and insist on an up or down vote on awarding
or not awarding amnesty to illegal aliens. At least we will have a clear
idea of what we are supporting or rejecting.
-
- "That kind of clarity will lead to recalling the
failure of our previous attempt to solve the illegal alien problem by this
means and remind voters in how many ways the 1986 bill made the problem
much worse.
-
- "Notice that only opponents of amnesty use the word
amnesty now. Proponents have abandoned that language completely. This is
because "forgiveness" for what Americans label wrongdoing is
not what is sought by our opponents. Amnesty also smacks of a favor that
can be granted or withheld by a dominant other, and since non-Hispanics
may be a vanishing majority, it's open season on us.
-
- "You see, Americans don't have a choice about "comprehensive
reform" anymore, its supporters imply, because we will soon be a voiceless
minority, no matter the arguments on our side or the equities.
-
- "But there are other misunderstood deceptions, contradictions,
and agendas in play. Most of Mexico's leadership has taken this same position
and has encouraged and done everything in their power to made this "retaking"
a fact.
-
- "They see letting illegal aliens stay forever, no
matter how they came or whether we even know who they really are, as only
right since Hispanics are so close to being the dominant force in America.
So now's the time to go for amnesty, by any name, and cinch the deal quickly
before the next election.
-
- "We have known for years that this idea, that they,
not we, are in America to stay, is taught in the schools. But it's an idea
that can be enunciated in more aggressive language in street demonstrations,
where Hispanic ownership of America is trumpeted and brazenly communicated
via inflammatory signs, like "gringos go home."
-
- "But is it possible that Americans are finally waking
up from their longtime passivity on this issue? Have we reason to finally
cheer that the passive acceptance of illegality we always hoped wasn't
bred in the bones could actually be seriously challenged by Americans?
-
- "And if this is so, to what can we attribute new
public recognition of immigration reality? Are Americans catching on that
neither amnesty nor the meaningless phrase "comprehensive reform"
does anything practical or positive for most Americans, and that nothing
would make this latest push for legalizing illegals a change that would
benefit anyone except illegals themselves and those that employ them?
-
- "These facts have been obvious to opponents of amnesty
for the last two decades, but how come most Americans are just catching
on and putting up a struggle now that could actually be a game changer?
-
- "Being overly righteous about obligations to those
perceived to be downtrodden springs from excesses of feel-goodism for its
own sake and flourishes best in the presence of satiety and guilt over
abundance. But life is not as good as it was. Fear is in the air, personal
and government indebtedness scary, murders and stabbings and robberies
more threatening, gangs and graffiti a more common sight, and children
now cannot walk to school unattended. In short, the American sense of safety
at home and in the community seems gone or increasingly uncertain. So we
are finally daring to ask, is welcoming the world worth the price Americans
are paying for compassion? And is that price now too high?"
-
- __________
-
-
- Check out this link with Wooldridge on bicycle and Lester
Brown and panel discussion:
-
- www.upnorthmedia.org/watchupnorthtv.asp?SDBFid=1631
-
- Tomorrow's Americaproject on www.youtube.com/contemporarylearning.
-
- Producer: GEORGE A. COLBURN www.tomorrowsamerica.com
-
- DC: 202-258-4887
-
- gac@starbrightmc.com
-
- Link to www.tomorrowsamerica.com for more discussions
on America's predicament.
-
- FOR MORE INFORMATION:
-
- www.starbrightmediacorp.com
-
- www.tomorrowsamerica.com
-
- ____
-
- Frosty Wooldridge has bicycled across six continents
- from the Arctic to the South Pole - as well as six times across the USA,
coast to coast and border to border. In 2005, he bicycled from the Arctic
Circle, Norway to Athens, Greece. He presents "The Coming Population
Crisis in America: and what you can do about it" to civic clubs, church
groups, high schools and colleges. He works to bring about sensible world
population balance at www.frostywooldridge.com He is the author of:
America on the Brink: The Next Added 100 Million Americans. Copies available:
1 888 280 7715
|
