The Rank Dishonesty of Immigration Restrictionists
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), isn’t shy about acknowledging that his organization wants to end illegal immigration but also limit legal immigration. Krikorian’s book is titled The Case against Immigration, Legal and Illegal.
Steven Camarota, director of research for CIS and Krikorian’s top deputy, recently told Politico that congressional leaders could expect to receive pressure to look beyond illegal immigrants because “there is a lot of public support for reducing legal immigration.”
CIS is just one of a web of anti-immigrant groups started or supported by the notorious eugenicist John Tanton. Two other Tanton groups, the Federation for American Immigration Reform and NUMBERSUSA, also support limiting legal immigration to ridiculously low levels — as few as a couple hundred thousands legal immigrants per year.
Some members of Congress have consumed the Kool-Aid and proposed a national moratorium on all immigration, including the legal kind. The leader of this chorus used to be former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO). But now you’re likely to hear the same song from immigration hardliners like Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Rep. Steve King (R-IA), both of whom support limiting legal immigration.
And now that the immigration debate has moved back to the state and local level, it’s no surprise that state and local officials are coming out against legal immigration.
Most notably, State Sen. Russell Pearce (R-AZ) — the author of Arizona’s dreadful and dysfunctional immigration law SB-1070 — made clear that he doesn’t just have a problem with illegal immigrants but with all immigrants. During a recent panel discussion in Washington, D.C., hosted by the conservative group Judicial Watch, Pearce declared:
I do think there ought to be a moratorium, maybe, until we get our act together. …We’re allowing people to come through without complete background checks, you know, we’re letting people overstay their visas. … Um, there ought to be a timeout all the way around until we get our arms around national security.
Pearce is partly right. The immigration debate does need a timeout — on dishonesty. We need to pull the plug on the lies, including the absurd claim that immigration restrictionists aren’t going after legal immigrants.
Of course, they are. And that leads me to ask: what part of legal don’t these people understand?
Well, a fine and eloquent slander job there, amounting to “all opponents of unrestricted immigration are racists.”
Let’s look at the options.
Unrestricted immigration
or
Restricted immigration. How do we restrict it? By passing and enforcing laws that set standards for who can be let in, how many, etc. Now, if the current means of restricting immigration aren’t working, and one desires to restrict it, then changes are in order. And sometimes, that means shutting everything down. If a pilot of a plane thinks that the mechanical problems that have cropped up pose an existential threat to the plane, should he just keep on flying, or land the plane and fix it? It’s unlikely the pilot will land the plane simply because one of the lights in the restroom isn’t working. Different story if the half of the fuel pumps aren’t working.
It is reasonable to argue whether or not the threat is existential, minimal, or even imaginary. It’s also reasonable to argue whether or not any system of restriction is reasonable. It is not, however, reasonable to attack all opponents of unlimited immigration, i.e. “restrictionists”, as racists.
So Ruben, lay it out on the table.
Do YOU think there should be any restrictions on immigration? Are YOU a racist?
I often wonder about Ruben Navarrette sanity.
There are all kinds of reasons to be in favor of lower immigration levels based on education level.
Jordan of the Jordan commission level noted in a few in the commissions report. I guess Jordan is saying that she was “put off by the browning of America and pining away for the days of Leave It to Beaver”. Odd since she was a person of color herself.
The overcrowding of the cities where most low income immigrants end up, and all the inherent problems that are caused by the overcrowded cities. The unemployment rate, the need for us a nation to focus more on our childrens education then on the more expensive demands of ESL students and such.
I am totally against illegal immigration, I am not open to the idea of increasing immigration, I am open to the idea of lowering the limits on immigration and restricting it to the more education.
That is because I care about my nation and the people in it. Not because of Navarrette’s paranoia that those against illegal immigration or restricting immigration, are concerned about the color of skin immigrants may have.
Once again, El Emparedado shows us his rank dishonesty. Having finally realized that his racist demands to legalize mojados and drug thugs have met with nothing but scorn and contumely, he takes a half-step back and demands that immigration quotas be raised high enough to admit the entire population of Mexico.
El Emparedado dreams of the day when he can sit at ease on his veranda, teenaged maids bringing him cool drinks, whilst he watches the peons on his hacienda toiling to keep him rich. Ain’t gonna happen here, gamberro.
Ruben, Let me be perfectly clear and honest with you. I am in favor of legal immigration, but strongly favor strict limitations on the number and type of immigrant we accept. First and foremost immigrants who objectively will benefit the country financially should be at the front of the line. Second, only those that can show they will not be a financial burden on the U.S. taxpayer should be allowed in. Third, legitimate refugees should always be considered. Fourth, anyone with HIV or any other disease that would endanger U.S. citizens and burden the country is banned. Finally, any persons who belong to groups who seek the destruction of the U.S. should be barred completely. Hopefully that clears up your claims of “rank dishonesty.”
I suppose Mr. Navarette is the required “diversity” member, but this site would do much better without his inane mutterings. If I want to receive his rubbish, all I have to do is watch the evening news on TV.
In the process, he probably confuses new readers who don’t realize his real game.
Ruben is a shill for businesses who want cheap labor. This is his bread and butter and he is no better than Jesse Jackson. I for one am anti-slavery but you notice Ruben does not mention the terrible conditions that these poor people live in here. The same people who are driven out of Mexico by their ruling elite and cross our border illegally. He sent me here to show me that I really am a racist even though I don’t have a problem with anyone who comes here legally. He is the all knowing authority and his opinions are the rules we are to follow. What an @$$!
First, let’s be clear. The borders of the U.S. were open to immigration from Europe until 1924. Congress then limited legal immigration by a quota system which favored Northern Europe, discriminated against Southern Europe, and limited most of the rest of the world to 100 individuals per country per annum. Prior to that, immigration from Asia was either closed entirely or severely limited. English speaking immigrants from Canada simply walked in and took up residence; if they wanted to be naturalized later their numbers were subtracted from the most easily determined “country of natural origin.”
Fast forward to today and that system has developed into a system whereby a national and global quota exists. For legal immigrants, preference is given to the “immediate” family of previous immigrants who have become American citizens and then to skilled workers and “workers in short supply.” If the demand for “family” visas outstrips the quota then no skilled workers from a country will be allowed. In addition, people who came here as non-immigrant students frequently have to return home whether they want to or not after completing their education. Most of the time it doesn’t matter if the individual got a bachelor’s degree in drama or a PhD in astrophysics.
We need qualified, talented immigrants. We do not necessarily need mom, pop, three sisters, and an aunt of the guy with the PhD. His/her spouse and kids, yes; more distant relatives, no.
We do not owe the world a new home. We do not owe Mexico or any other nation in this hemisphere a place to dump its excess or non-productive population.
I’m a foreigner who arrived in this country decades ago as a “non-resident alien” with an official work visa, and I fully support the views expressed by #s 3 & 4.
The word illegal should recover its meaning, and no illegal immigrant can be allowed to go through a “fast” road to citinzenship. They have to go out and get in line. Thousands of foreign grads with Master’s and PhDs are forced to leave when they could make good contributions to the country.
If we need gardeners, maids, and short cooks, let’s pay them decent wages and employ the American unemployed.
Why is the voice of reason only expressed in blogs? The public discourse is plagued with both extremes (equally revolting), they distort pictures, and the voice of the nation is lost.
The immigrants who made this country great (regardless of race or color)came to these shores to settle the land and give their lives to defend it if necessary. Present immigrants are not interested to be part of the American melting pot. They are interested in staying isolated within their own communities, and preserving not just their personal habits (wich is OK), but also the communal social habits that did not allow the growth of their countries and made them flee to the Northern Hemisphere. Examples? Lack of respect for the law (jay walking,driving without insurance or license, claiming public health care and financial support by not declaring their employment, etc.) Is this politically incorrect? Yes, but it’s true.
I find offensive going to fast food restaurants and hearing shouts in foreign languages and loud laughter coming from the kitchen or behind the counter, even from the back of the dining area. I always wonder how well bred Americans must feel.
I don’t care about the color of the immigrants as long as they are a positive addition to the population and not an embarassment, and are committed to the common good of the nation.
The problem is we are preaching to the choir and this does not advance our position.
“Prior to that, immigration from Asia was either closed entirely or severely limited.”
Actually, there were no restrictions on immigration from anywhere until the early 20th century, and plenty of Chinese did come over before that.
Restricting legal immigration is something entirely different from illegality. That said, there is nothing inherently wrong with restricting legal immigration either.
If it makes sense, then do it!
The first thing that needs to go is the insane Refugee Resettlement Program!
Navarette’s obsessive resentment of borders, national sovereignty, and this nation’s Anglo-Saxon tradition is becoming an black mark on Pajama Media. And I say that being neither Anglo or Saxon.
Well, it’s reasonable not to want to give away to foreigners that our ancestors have bequeathed to us. It’s not anti-immigration merely to want to keep the level of immigration down to a reasonable number — say, two percent of our population per decade.
It’s the strangest thing.
Here in Australia where our colonial past is still pretty fresh, our history is under constant assault from the left for the fact that our ancestors colonised the country by outbreeding the natives and through….(wait for it)…*mass immigration*. According to the left we are to feel deeply and perpetually guilty that these ruthless immigrants came into this country, settled and became the dominant culture.
They committed cultural genocide! The left squeals, this wasn’t *their country* to come too! They should have stayed in their own country!
Then out of the other side of their mouth they lecture us on how we are supposed to fully embrace unfettered immigration! Even worse by people who don’t and simply won’t share our culture and in the case of many Muslims, have a colonial mindset where they seek to out breed us and become the dominant culture!
It’s madness! According to the left and I assume this Ruben fellow the aboriginals should have “embraced” the European mass immigration into their country, stopped being “nativists” and “immigration restrictionists” and embraced the new diverse and flavoured multicultural nation that was thrust upon them. Surely, as we all know no one loses out when it comes to immigration!…ahem.
Why is it that people like Reuben who think white Americans are terrified of the “browning” of America are somehow closet racists but those who want to ERADICATE WHITE AMERICA are inviolate? Why? Because Reuben and his ilk have been getting away with it for decades. Hey Reuben, why do you HATE white people? Do you support ethnic cleansing? Racial profiling? Yes Ruben. Halt immigration now. Because the America which became great was comprised of peoples from areas of the world which contributed to her greatness. If they were white, purple, or brown, who gives a sh-t? But they were what they were and you cannot change history. So if many of us want to retain some vestiges of a productive, educated, COHESIVE society, it only makes sense that we have more of what made it so. If you can’t handle the truth, get out of the argument. For too many years people have shut their mouths for fear of the backlash from people like you. No more, bro’. We are facing sky high unemployment, are importing hostile inimical cultures, bringing in hordes of the underclass who want to treat America as a great reparations whore and you want people to do what? Celebrate our diversity? Even the sclerotic heads of Europe are beginning to understand that immigration is the biggest weapon in the fight to Marxify a country. It is pure Marxism/Leninism to eradicate nationalism, sovereignty, borders, culture, and a common language. So yes. STOP IMMIGRATION NOW. Because it’s a S.I.N. And Ruben, just because you champion the cause of the “brown peoples” doesn’t make your racism towards others any less evil. You obviously don’t give a monkey’s ass what happens to people as long as they are white. Stop accusing others of doing exactly what you are doing.
OK, so now Navarrette is saying that not only
people against illegal immigration
are bad but
also that people for the setting of any limitations on immigration
are bad.
Fine.
Given that, Mr. Navarrette now has to justify his ANARCHISM.
Sorry, Ruben, boy, that’s all you’ve described. C’mon, Ruben. Do it.
The point the author is missing is that it’s time to talk honestly about all immigration, legal and illegal. And yes, maybe the country IS better off with restrictions on immigration based on what’s best for the United States, including allowing entrance of educated and productive potential future citizens while restricting those who either can’t or won’t ever become anything but a burden on the rest of us. Let’s have a immigration policy that makes sense for the country, not one based on a failure to see the results of essentially-unrestricted immigration, both legal and illegal. I travel regularly to central California – I’ve SEEN what unrestricted immigration is doing to this country – rural ghettos and small towns, no-go zones – to say nothing of uninsured drivers, welfare families. illegal voters and a complete lack of any effort to learn to live as Americans. The Third World coming to your local neighborhood! Let’s talk about reality, not mushy, liberal, “we’ve always been a county of immigrants,” crap!
How dishonest the pro-mass immigration lot are.
There’s dozens of countries that are crowded like sardines in a can.
Every single one of them is an absolute rubbish tip, figuratively and literally. Too many humans in too close contact creates a deep seated loathing of others.
Why is there some sort of moral righteousness assigned to the demand to over-crowd and so reduce our own quality of life in our own moderately populated countries?
It’s bizarre. It’s like the spoiled child who didn’t earn the wonderful mass of toys he has been given and so the game to him is simply to try and break them. Who on earth wants *more* crowding, *more* traffic, *more* crime, higher land prices, higher housing prices and less individual freedom? The more people a country has by definition the more governance and governmental layers and the smaller the individual voice.
By the sounds of it there’s no upper limit on the number of people Ruben would allow into the US each year.
Is that a strawman? Then what’s the limit Ruben? If you have a limit I can easily find someone with a higher limit (even no limit as many in the no-borders mob demand) who will derogatorily describe *you* as an “immigration restrictionist”.
There’s no moral imperative to allow citizens of other countries to move into ones country.
None. at. all.
The only moral argument for immigration is an intake of refugees who are fleeing their own (typically over crowded) hell hole countries and rational economics. At present the US isn’t exactly short of labour or refugees (two million a year at the moment from the southern border alone?).
It’s like I went to sleep and PJM was taken over by HuffPo.
Read about the anxiety the Sierra Club and other leftie groups have because they understand that they cannot make an intellectual argument for the preservation of the environment while NOT BACKING IMMIGRATION REFORM. They problem them have is that THEY WILL NOT GO UP AGAINST ANOTHER LEFT WING AGENDA. So they lecture and lecture about clean water, clean air, open spaces etc. all the while ignoring the elephant in the room – mass immigration with high birth rates and Third World People who are hardly stewards of the environment and when they arrive, couldn’t care less when it involves earning money. If the environmental movement was serious about what they claim, then they will get on board and fight to restrict immigration. Otherwise they have exposed themselves to be what most thinking see them as: another Marxist front group with a hard left radical agenda.
twostix:
“Every single one of them is an absolute rubbish tip, figuratively and literally.”
Too bloody right, mate! Clods like Navarette go to a foreign nation and only visit the tourist resort areas, never seeing how the proletarians live, and form their opinions of the place by how many drinks they can buy in Acapulco or Bali.
Seamen see the industrial areas where such Potemkin Villages are non-existent…we get the real deal of living a blue collar existence in Port Elizabeth South Africa, for example.
“By the sounds of it there’s no upper limit on the number of people Ruben would allow into the US each year.”
I betcha he’d whine like a little girl who had spoilt her new dress if the immigrants were white Europeans.
I reckon that the creole Navarette,(look at his picture…he’s pretty straight Iberian blood, by all appearances), wants to have millions of mestizo peons in the USA and sentence them to living in barrios so that he can bruit himself “Don Navarette” and figuratively oversee his minions working his fields…just like they did back when parts of the US was called “Alta California”.
Wow, once again…
We have always limited legal immigration; unfettered legal immigration isn’t much better than illegal immigration (ask France if you don’t believe me.) We specifically limit poor and under-educated people, not out of racism, but because we can’t afford any more people on our entitlement/welfare system. Europeans tend to be better educated and wealthier, in general (partly because of PAST racism, but also because Western style, generally capitalist/free market societies perform better.)
We need a sane, more streamlined way for both labor and knowledge-based workers to enter our country.
Having said that, why is it that all of your articles essentially boil down to: “You’re racist, admit it. Only when you admit that you hate brown people, Republicans, can we move forward”???? When are you going to admit that you hate white people? When are you going to admit that when you see a white guy, you think “filthy racist.” Admit it– all white people kinda look alike, don’t they?
I’m sure, in your case, it’s much more nuanced then that, right? I’m sure you have tons of white friends… heck, I’m sure you’ve even dated white chicks before.
Actually, the US had completely open borders until the early 20th century. If you could get here, you could stay.
I think that would be a bad policy now, but it was our policy for the first 100 years or so.
This is just another undocumented assertion from America’s leading apologist for illegal immigration.
Lest I stoop to Mr Navarette’s level of discourse, I’ll offer this: I’m married to an immigrant, a legal one. Oh, she’s not white either. We followed the rules, and support legal immigration. For what it’s worth, the Canadian model of favoring those with substantial assets and education who will create jobs is certainly worth emulating. It’s a single example, but it’s more than the author has offered to support his thesis.
For some odd reason, we never seriously discuss modelling our immigration laws to mirror those of Mexico. I am waiting, eagerly, to hear the justification of why my country’s laws just don’t matter. With ten percent unemployment, I don’t see why we need to have more competition for the jobs that do exist, but maybe we’ll be enlightened next time. Or not.
I am legal emigrant to this great country. I have been a citizen for last 15 years. I strongly oppose illegal immigration, and I see nothing wrong with putting restriction to legal immigration. Every western country(and probably EVERY country in the world) has restrictions and quotas to legal immigration. Canada and Australia has points and quotas, US had quotas for last 90 years, and that is how it should be.
Restricting legal immigration to people who most likely to contribute to our great society is worthwhile goal. If those people happen to be mostly white is not a fault of US, but a statement of fact. This is what Michael Graham, radio talk show host in Boston calls “Natural Truth”
Mr. Ruben, am I correct to understand that you consider restriction to legal immigration a bad thing? Don’t you agree that removing such restrictions be the same as legalizing illegal immigration? Isn’t that what you believe should ultimately happen?
Mexico has extremely severe limitations on LEGAL immigration, and I do not want to tell you the horrors suffered there by ILLEGALS, including those who are only in transit to the US.
Well, this is nothing new, is it? Navarrette, like all good little regressives, plays the race card once again, using the same tired old leftist tactics.
Like all regressives, Navarrette displays his complete inability to use logic. He starts his diatribe by erroneously conflating the desired AMOUNT of immigration (legal or otherwise), with the TYPE of immigrants that may or may not be allowed. His next bit of illogic follows closely on the heels of the first, specifically that wanting to admit only those immigrants who support and assimilate well into our primary culture equates to and/or is a function of only the immigrants’ race, as opposed to their native culture, intelligence, educational background, etc.
Ever since the immigration law of 1965 foisted on this nation by Robert Kennedy, our society has experienced nothing but chaos from immigrants who are either unable or unwilling to assimilate. What we need now is a time-out, something akin to what you would give to an unruly child, in order for us to fully and carefully examine both the underlying assumptions and actual consequences of that law. We need a full, open, realistic, non-PC, non-multicultural national dialog on what such immigration policies are doing to us, and how their adverse impacts leading to crime and chaos may be countered so as to never again occur. We also need time to allow those LEGAL immigrants to fully assimilate by having them take personal responsibility for shedding their old language and culture. Most importantly, we need time to completely stop illegal aliens from swarming over our borders, and set up restrictions here on businesses and government agencies so that all illegals currently in extent will be forced back to their country of origin by their own incentive.
What we are now doing in reality is importing poverty, crime, and cultural chaos. This nation was never a “nation of immigrants” (a simplistic phrase that mesmerizes regressives like Navarrette into a comatose, non-thinking state), but instead we are a nation of ‘E Pluribus Unum’. Let’s examine that for a minute: it means that those who come to this country are ready and willing to lay aside the inferior cultures of where they came from, in order to learn, practice, and live the new superior culture they find here.
Is there a hierarchy of cultures? To the consternation of rabid foaming-at-the-mouth regressives, the answer is ‘yes’. Some cultures are better than others, If such were not the case, then logically why come here in the first place? If the answer is just some temporary economic advantage, then by all rights immigrants should never be allowed to enter… after all, why should we admit someone who either doesn’t want or is inherently unable to responsibly give back anything long-term to our culture, but instead only wants to extract economic goodies?
This nation is not and never has been just some grand idea of abstract democracy and freedom. The implementation of those concepts depend in their entirety on an actual living, breathing, working society filled with specific traditions based on a specific culture. To say otherwise is to lapse into the confusion of either Bush and his neocons, or Obama and his hate-America metanarratives. Is a superior culture a perfect culture? No, of course not, and no traditional conservative would ever spout such illogic. But of course that claim is yet another strawman living in the fevered imaginations of the left about their enemies.
I’m truly interested… exactly what kind of society do regressives like Navarrette envision if we continue to have unlimited immigration into this country? What will society look like in the not-too-distant future, say around 2025? I personally expect it will look like something out of the movie Bladerunner, except of course with the cognoscenti like Navarrette living in pristine gated communities as befits their stature of benign tyrant taking care of the little people. Is this what he and his minions desire? If so, in addition to driving out the illegals, I strongly suggest that those such as Navarrette leave this country as well. I would be more than happy to assist him.
You sink lower with every column, Ruben- bucking to be the next Ron Rosenbaum? What a nice way of slandering your readers, by comparing us to that nasty old Nazi sypmathizer Buchanan!
I do think our immigration laws need reform, but not because I’m all wee-weed up over some “browning of America.” Rather, the problem is that in the modern world economy we already have far far too many unskilled and semiskilled workers just among the native born, and it makes less than sense to keep bringing in more, especially if language creates an even further hurdle to employability. But I firmly believe we should encourage ongoing immigration of university graduates and trained professionals- from Latin America, Africa and East and South Asia, as well as Europe. So shove your ‘nativist’ smear in your pipe and smoke it.
OK, OK, we get it, Rubin. You want the US to join Latin America in a long series of coups, counter-coups, and back-breaking poverty.
“Those who claim to support legal immigration are often shown to be in favor of drastically restricting legal entrance by immigrants to the U.S.”
Yeah, so what’s wrong with that?
Navarette:
“When immigration restrictionists — a posse made up of folks who are put off by the browning of America and pining away for the days of Leave It to Beaver — aren’t trying to keep out foreigners, they spend an inordinate amount of time trying to keep up appearances.”
Way to go, Navarette! Start off a column by accusing your political opponents of solely racist motives. THAT will really sell your case, won’t it?
What a tool you are.
And while you accuse nativist Americans of putting up appearances, this beggars the question of what appearances you yourself are trying to put up.
“The bottom line is that there are many Americans out there who seem to believe that this was a better, stronger, safer, and more productive country when the population was whiter.”
The problem with you aiming that at us is that it is true. The country WAS better, stronger, safer, and more productive when the White Judeo-Christian culture was unchallenged.
Now you may note that I used a different formulation than you did. Legal immigrants who assimilated into the over-culture, no matter where they came from, did well.
The proof of the pudding that America WAS better is that for hundreds of years now people have stood in line to get on the ship and immigrate here, as opposed to say, Brasil or Ecuador.
They still do, which should tell you something.
And the legal immigration restrictionists are largely motivated by the economy. With a 10% official unemployment rate, it is madness to allow H1-B visa workers in to take the jobs that native citizens badly need.
“The immigration debate does need a timeout — on dishonesty. We need to pull the plug on the lies, including the absurd claim that immigration restrictionists aren’t going after legal immigrants.”
Well I’ve been pretty honest with you here, Navarette, so why don’t you reciprocate?
Maybe you can tell us why so many nations to our south are such utter shit-holes that the people there dream of leaving them to come wash our dishes and pick our produce?
And furthermore, why would a creole like yourself,(I married a woman of “Land Grant” ancestry, so I know the Hispanic caste system from whence you come), wish to hew to the multi-culti nonsense that will effectively re-create here the shit-hole conditions that the mestizo and campesino peons are fleeing from there?
If you want Mexico or Guatemala, Navarette,(which you manifestly do), then move there. You’re not going to re-establish Central America here in El Norte.
I fear that Ruben is right. Most people opposed to illegal immigration also want significant restrictions on legal immigration as well. And what is wrong with that? Some of us (myself included) would like to preserve our culture and our civilization and are a little skeptical about the merits of millions of people coming here from cultures that do not share our values or even openly hostile to our values.
If wanting to preserve a quality of life for your children by restricting unnecessary and unwanted immigration is immoral, then count me as immoral. Our highest obligation is to our families first, it is not to insure that people we have no connection to have a better life at our expense and the expense of the one’s we love.
One simple question for Ruben. If unrestricted immigration from Europe was creating problems for Mexico, would he feel any need to restrict that immigration? To deny people the right to express their self-interest is absurd and perverse.
To paraphrase the argument against the collective: “If every man is my brother, I have no brother.”
I agree with you 100%. I belong to NumbersUSA and we would like to limit legal immigration for reasons, including preventing overpopulation and dwindling of resources. It is absolutely legitimate to have limits on immigration. A country can absorb only so many people comfortably.
“Those who claim to support legal immigration are often shown to be in favor of drastically restricting legal entrance by immigrants to the U.S.”
That’s an easy statement to make when you’re comparing them to those on the left that want to make any and every entrance by anyone into this country legal – no questions asked.
There aren’t too many of you totalitarians (Democrats) that get too far down the list of rules and assumptions for arguing with a totalitarian, but I think you may have made it past Rule #1 – Reject the premise.
This one may be Rule #2 of arguing with a totalitarian (Democrat) – Reject the Red Herring. The problem isn’t that one side wants limits and restrictions on immigration, the problem is that you want to balkanize this country through your multi-culturism and unregulated flood of uneducated, unskilled labor. Gee slavery much. I thought your kind was in love with regulation? Why not here? See Europe where even those leftists are noticing its a FAILURE.
There are libraries of worthless papers on immigration policy; add this to the pile. The author may not own an electronic device, but they are now filled with the societal melt down in Islam. There are millions of people who cheered when the US took a hit on 9-11, who are now pleading with us to send troops to save their skin. Europe is awash with masses of people who, for generations, have never assimilated into the society. Why would any family live in a nation for 2-3 generations and never learn to speak, read and write the language? The leaders of German, France, and the UK have recently stated that multiculturalism is a failure. This case study of what not to do about immigration policy has little to do with the USA. But it shows facts, which the author ignores.
All illegal immigration invasions are caused by disaster in the home country. The US has little problem with Canada. There have been 30,000 murders along our southern border. Bullets fly into our citizens, and land. Slaves are herded across our border, along with thousands of tons of narcotics. Mexico, a country rich in oil, has few paved roads, schools, hospitals, sewerage treatment plants or water plants. They have a policy of flushing their poor into the US. Their military has declared war on the drug cartels and it is unclear who is winning.
None of the above is the responsibility of the USA. It is the responsibility of our federal government to prevent 10 – 20 million people from invading our nation. It has abjectly failed. As a result, every county and village in America is trying to cope with a disaster not of their making.
All of this is due to racism by Americans, in the judgment of the author, we simply just hate people with brown skin. I think there are a lot of nuts, with no clue, banging on keyboards. After reading that he frequents CNN, I gained insight. This is a worthless article.
“When immigration restrictionists — a posse made up of folks who are put off by the browning of America and pining away for the days of Leave It to Beaver ”
So, if I’m a pasty white assed American with Irish and Scottish ancestry and my wife is a green card holding, Tijuana born, brown skinned Mexican and we have little half-breed children that tan WONDERFULLY (damn I’m jealous), what am I? What are we? More fodder for your purge?
Are there any lines subversives will not cross to limit debate and avoid division. NOPE.
Ahh yes, I love it when a Democrat openly pines for Hezbollah and Drug Cartel car bombings in the streets of America. That’s exactly what this screed is.
This was once a nation of slavery. That particular institution could no longer be sustained and at great price was ended. Should be once again be a nation of slavery because we once were? There was a reason in that time and place for it to be. That ended. The same goes for unrestricted immigration. The original rationales are no longer valid. Do we need the masses to fill the great emptiness? Do we want for labor? Do we need to develop the natural resources more?
While everyone else is being asked to accept less, to do without because of the population pressure on the environment and limits to sustainable resources, here we still have those who wish us to blind ourselves to these exhortations as they cry for the past and loyalties to blood or tribe rather than nation.
Do you have a coherent argument to make, Ruben? Yawn.
Um, Ruben, do not cite Pat Buchanan on anything except to show how idiotic and far afield he’s gone. He’s not a conservative, he’s, well I’m not sure what he is, but he ain’t what he used to be, or at least what he presented himself as.
And yes, I support legal immigration, not illegal. Stop your attacks on those of us who do see a difference.
Since the Mexican citizenry took it upon itself to migrate more Mexicans into the U.S. than the quota we expected, they should now have to bear the burden of zero Mexican immigration until the numbers catch up to the intended quota.
A bigger issue is why the Mexican people do not want to stay in their own country and make it what they are yearning for. After our forefathers fought and died to make this country what it is today, Mexicans want to “take it back” and make it their own. If it were up to Ruben, the entire U.S. would be of Mexican descent. Ruben, would it then be run like the Mexico that Mexicans are running from?
I am a LEGAL IMMIGRANT from CANADA — one of those who obeyed the law and crossed the Niagara River over a bridge with documentation. I thought of walking or swimming across. But its cold, wide and there’s a fast current, not to mention that little matter of the Falls and the Whirlpool. Then I thought about taking a plane from Toronto to Mexico, the Rio Grande being shallow. But I waited…until I had STATUS in the USA. My wife who works in immigration law tells me that there are ONLY TWO KINDS OF IMMIGRANTS in the USA. Those WITH STATUS (i.e. legal) and THOSE WITHOUT ANY STATUS (i.e. illegals, wetbacks, whatever you like to call them). THe USA is a country run on law. STATUS and skin pigmentation ARE NOT LINKED. Let’s keep it that way.
Mr. Navarrette,
Mr, Navarrette,
Is the issue of illegal immigration the only thing that is ever on your mind? Can’t you write about anything else?
While I am writing on your subject, I wonder just how many Americans of Mexican descent actually know where Hispanola is located and what countries are there? I wonder how many Americans of any descent know?
We are always hearing the term Hispanic. To me, if you are Hispanic, you are from Hispanola.
Am I incorrect?
Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs
Grow up, Navarette, the narrow lens you use needs to widen with a reality check.
Checked other materials by Mr. Ruben Navarette on Pajamas.
Wonder why is he here with his “GREATEST greatest U.S. minority ever” apologetics.
All the combination of letters of his can be reduced to the following:
“my ethnic group, right or wrong”;
or, rather:
“my ethnic group–right, always right”.
Editor(s), take notice, pls.
Im Anti Comonialist myself Mr. Navarette.
I got no further than this sentence: “When immigration restrictionists — a posse made up of folks who are put off by the browning of America…”
I’m so sick of this racist writer. Tell ya what bub – I not only want restrictions, I want a 10 year hiatus – as in NO NEW IMMIGRANTS – PERIOD!!!
We need to absorb the ones (legal immigrants – not illegal freeloading criminal invaders) we have now and we must insist they assimilate into OUR culture.
They left their countries so they can leave their cultures behind them too. Everybody else did – what makes them so darned special? We’d be expected assimilate into their cultures were the tables turned.
Since you say you’re sick of this author…
At the bottom of this page, there is a link titled “Contact Us”.
Please USE IT to tell the Editors what you – ahem – think of this author.
“It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state,” – Milton Friedman
Ruben,
I protest Mexico’s blatant racism. They are fighting the whiting of Mexico. I can’t buy property on the beach, I can’t get a drivers license, I get arrested if I work. I don’t get to stay if I have a baby, I don’t get a free lawyer if I get arrested. Free health care in Mexico? It isn’t fair wah,wah,wah! How do you look at yourself in the mirror without being embarrassed.
Free health care in Mexico?
Hardly. If you’re the white man, they will literally DETAIN you until your bill is paid. My grandad almost died in that country after he was burned in a bad auto accident. The hospitals down there could do almost nothing for him and detained him until my grandmother could scrape up money to pay the bill. He damn near died from the infection. Free my ass.
What is wrong with wanting either reduced legal immigration or reformed legal immigration? I have no animus towards legal immigrants. They obeyed the law. That doesn’t mean that admitting this or that particular legal immigrant was in this country’s interests.
There is a potential problem when large numbers of legal immigrants come from the same culture, settle in the same communities, demand special accommodations and show disloyalty to this country by undermining its immigration laws. It is entirely reasonable to discuss these issues.
This goes beyond mere hypocrisy into the land of “doublethink”. Doublethink is formalized delusion and this is the result:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-mug-photogallery,0,5488047.photogallery
Those photos are reality which is its own argument.
End all immigration now – ESPECIALLY from the Third World.
I prefer “Leave It To Beaver” to “Chapulina Colorada” – so what?
I prefer an ordered society with beautiful houses and nice lawns to shanty towns too.
28.5% of the people in those mug shots are white Europeans.
“…seem to believe that this was a better, stronger, safer, and more productive country when the population was whiter.”
“Seem”? You wanna put a hood on reality and call it the KKK knock yourself out.
And now, the rest of the story — or at least a part of it.
Navarette does not operate in good faith and is not worth reading. BTW, he’s a Medved favorite.
I’ve read enough Navarrette to realize that he is blind to his own prejudice toward Caucasians. His thinking is magical, like a child’s thinking: he attributes motives that he believes are there, but he can never cite anyone who actually has those motives. In short, he is a bigot with a large audience which appreciates him.
I guess I’m a racist and a nativist.
Here’s an idea everyone should be able to agree to:
We, the United States of America, should make our immigration policy, shall we say, flexible.
Our immigration laws would change for each and every nation around the world. Our immigration policy would be matched up to the immigration policy of the immigrants home country. There would of course have to be nations exempt from this policy such as autocratic nations that don’t allow any immigration, in and/or out.
If an immigrant wishes to come here from Mexico, he would have to meet the same standards that Mexico requires an American to meet in order to move to Mexico. I believe Mexico requires almost nothing, but MONEy. You have to prove that you can afford to take care of yourself and your family, food, shelter and medical care, for the rest of your life.
If someone comes here from Japan, they would have to meet Japanese laws for immigration.
If we did this, NOBODY could say we were being racist or nativist. If the Mexicans stated we were being harsh with them, our response would be “It’s the same standards your home nation government uses for American’s to go to Mexico. How is that racist?”
The only problem with this, is that some nations may take that step and open their borders, at least temporarily, so that their people could then flood into the US, since by changing their policy to an open border, it would change our policy towards them to an open border.
This seems logical to me.
Oh, look – the token latino dissenter is back…que paso, vato? (Just thought I would try to make you feel more at home)
With 10.5% unemployment, you do a piss poor job justifying an influx of poorly educated, poorly experienced blue collar workers, buddy – that is precisely what it comes down to, no ifs, ands or buts about it. You and your ilk cannot seem to come to grips with reality because you are obsessed with emotional politics and incapable of grasping basic, objective tangible issues.
same old crap from Nav
agree with Dave and most of the commenters
racist racist racist if you don’t want future human bombs and terrorists, deadbeats and losers in your country
blah blah blah
I want ENGLISH ONLY laws back on the table too- if it’s illegal to say “NO BLACKS need apply” why is it OK to say “BILINGUAL only” meaning Spanish not french german or other language?
sick of discrimination against ME by “Hispanics” and “no job for you gringa”
So what’s wrong with being against immigration? It’s not like we haven’t done our fair share of taking in the huddled masses.
We need a frakkin break. I fully support a 20 halt to any immigration.
And the ban of muslim immigration is forever.
Enough is enough!
You have a right to speak your opinion Ruben, but feel lucky to do so in this great country where we want to keep it that way.
A few questions to the author, Mr. Nararrette, and I assume the author is an American citizen:
1) What does the author think should be the goal of American Immigration policy for all Countries in the World? Should there be equal openings for each country of the World? Or should there be a total limit based on each language? Should the openings instead be equally split by race? If by race what is the desired goal that the current majority U.S. White race be reduced to?
2) Should an obvious benefit to the United States be a major factor in development of immigration policy?
3) A large part of current U.S. immigration discussion is about Hispanics. If the term Hispanic used in relation to immigration means people whose first language is of Iberian derivation and who are currently a citizen of a Western Hemisphere country, should more Mexicans be allowed than any other Hispanic country?
4) Since Mexicans have the closest observation of the U.S. than any other Hispanic Country, should we only accept those Mexicans who truly understand what makes the difference between Mexico and the U.S., since the majority of Mexicans seem unable to fix their own country?
Knowing the Author’s answers to the above questions could help begin a discussion on legal immigration policy of the United States.
There were at least 30,000 gangs and 800,000 gang members active across the USA in 2007,[7][8] up from 731,500 in 2002 and 750,000 in 2004.[9] By 1999, Hispanics accounted for 47% of all gang members, Blacks 34%, Whites 13%, and Asians 6%.[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_United_States
As of 2005, Operation Community Shield had detained nearly fourteen hundred illegal immigrant gang members.[131]
Members from the Salvadoran gang MS-13 are believed by authorities to have established a smuggling ring in Matamoros, Mexico. This smuggling involved transporting illegal aliens from foreign countries into the United States. MS-13 has shown extreme violence against Border Patrol security to “teach them a lesson.”[132] “Mexican alien smugglers plan to pay violent gang members and smuggle them into the United States to murder Border Patrol agents, according to a confidential Department of Homeland Security memo obtained by the Daily Bulletin.”[133]
According to proceedings from a 1997 meeting of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, “Through other violations of our immigration laws, Mexican drug cartels are able to extend their command and control into the United States. Drug smuggling fosters, subsidizes, and is dependent upon continued illegal immigration and alien smuggling.”[122]
Drug cartels have been reported using illegal immigrants, sometimes armed, to cultivate marijuana within American National Forests, in California’s Los Padres National Forest,[123][124] Tahoe National Forest,[125] Six Rivers National Forest,[126] and Sequoia National Forest,[127] as well as in Arizona,[128] Oregon,[129] and Colorado.[130]
They are also murdering missionaries, people on jet skis, tourists and innocent bystanders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States
According to Homeland Security Department Secretary Janet Napolitano, about half of the nearly 393,000 people removed from the United States during the past (fiscal) year were criminals.
In 2009 about 35 percent were convicted criminals (Associated Press 10/07/10).
There have been more than 25 police officers killed (several in Phoenix) by illegal aliens and the most staggering number is over 4,000 U.S. citizens have been killed by illegal aliens, Southern Arizona rancher Robert Krentz being one.
So, Ruben…is everyone who is concerned about illegal immigration a racist who really does not make a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants?
Part of actually being an American, is caring about your country and your countrymen. It seems you have made it precisely 1/4 of the way through your personal assimilation. (that’s a twelve letter word)
You berate Americans for wishing to preserve the integrity of their borders, the fairness of the process for all nations to have access to our liberties and freedoms, for caring about producing the best and the brightest…because you obviously do not care much about those things.
You don’t care about massive crime waves, murders of our countrymen, the heavy burdens placed on our taxpayers in preventing a half-million home invaders each year from thumbing their noses at our protections.
You don’t care about America’s victims.
How could you? You have never fully adopted her as your home. You’re a Timeshare American. You only have a fractional interest in her well being. You want only the luxuries to be waiting at your doorstep, but you don’t have the pride of ownership in this land of ours.
If you did, you would not suffer from your myopia. The reason that 12 million home invaders live here, is because we are a kind and gentle, accepting and tolerant people. Sometimes…often…to our detriment.
The reason you get to write your slander of our countrymen with impunity, is because we value free speech, even when it is a traitorous lie.
But, the facts are these. We no longer can afford to be Mexico’s ATM.
We are broke. In our big cities, in over half of our states and in our federal government. You don’t care about that either. But, some of us have to, at least those of us that actually give a damn about this land of ours.
Beautiful! Love it! Time Share American!
What site am I on?!
Heres the real question for the writer of this tripe.
Whats in it for Americans of ANY race in allowing unfettered immigration?
Thats the only question. The rest is window dressing and cant.
Make a case for “joe/Jose sixpack” as to why unlimited, open borders immigration is good for them.
You cant do it.
Mr. Navarrette, I want a whiter country and you want a browner country. Why is your objective correct or not racist but mine is incorrect or racist?
Why should whites agree to become a minority in a country in which, as late as 1963, they were a 90% majority? Do let me know the rule on that.
Why is the U.S. vindicated in some way by immigration when no other country thinks it is an illegitimate and incomplete country because it does not encourage immigration?
Good gravy, just go away. We have double digit unemployment and you are still trotting out the same strawmen. Just stop. No Americans do not need more immigrants. We sure as hell don’t need criminals breaking the entry, visa, and work requirements and taking jobs from Americans. We don’t need anything like that.
What is wrong with you that you keep beating this dead horse?
With the unemployment rate being what it is, there is a very strong argument for not accepting any more immigrants whatsoever, legal or otherwise, regardless of color.
I don’t have a problem with ‘immigrants’. I have a problem with ‘immigrants (legal and illegal)’ who come to our Country, refuse to integrate into our society and embrace our culture, make demands that we change to suit them, refuse to learn our language, fly their homeland flags, hyphonate their nationality, and show a general disrespect and disregard for our traditions and values.
To me the issue isn’t immigration as much as it is multi culturalism.
Ignore this man; he speaks with forked tongue, and a disconnect with his brain.
Oh Ruben, I’m very surprised I didn’t see you as part of the subject material for article here: Useful Idiots, Then And Now. You must be useful to SOMEBODY…
As with other laws of this nation, we also have Immigration Laws, and I suggest all potential immigrants read up on these laws, follow them in detail, or go down in the process of committing and illegal act.
As it stands now, I want to go down to Ensenada for a few weeks, passport is required (didn’t used to be), I suggest all potential ‘visitors’ to USA get in the habit of doing the same – passport, proper ID, legal entry, insurance, or it’s off to the hoosegow for short duration and a speedy return home.
In regards to your: “America loves its immigrants, always has, if they come legally. Some people really believe that, notwithstanding all historical evidence to the contrary.”
Please cite this “historical evidence” you allude to.
The only immigrant problem I have is when there is a complete failure to assimilate. As a nation, we cater to immigrants, most any official help line or info line is accommodated in a variety of languages (press 1 for English). You used to be able to take CA DMV tests in about 10 different languages, probably more on request. I’m sure it gets a little expensive printing up all these different language test prep manuals.
It is really up to the immigrant to learn our language in a useful fashion and assimilate, but we seem to have many non-assimilation communities for a variety of races, but that is not the US doing this – we did not make Detroit an Islamic community, residents and employment availability did. And the ‘anti’ approach to assimilation.
Some of SFV, and a good bunch of Los Angeles is done with the very same approaches to assimilation, only difference is that it’s the Hispanic community and not Islamic.
So, by scrapping assimilation, even legal immigrants are putting themselves in a position. If you don’t want to assimilate, don’t come here!
Mr. Navarette, I don’t see that you have adequately answered the outstanding issue: That immigration from one country to another is subject to laws.
As far as I am reading, you advocate some kind of “special considerations” for the millions of central- and south Americans coming across the border, sending United States dollars back home to bolster other countries’ economies that are badly needed here.
Millions of immigrants made this country, but they did so legally. Exactly what are you advocating should be done differently now?
You know, for decades, Progressives have told us that a failure to reach proportional representation is, ipso facto, racism.
Let us run with that. 1/9th of Latin America is Mexican. Less than 1/6th of the world’s population is from Latin America.
Half of the world’s population lives within a few hundred miles of the Pacific Rim from North Korea down to India.
Africa has just under 1/6th of the world’s population.
Why is it that liberals hate Black Africans so much that they want Mexicans to have a vastly disproportionate share of immigration compared to Africans? Why are liberals so racist?
Why is it that liberals hate Asians so much that they want Mexicans to have a vastly disproportionate share of immigration compared to them? Why are liberals so racist?
Ok, try this one: we should have an immigration policy based on mercy – that is, if you come from a rotten place, you should be able to come here first. But Mexico has a higher standard of living than much of the world – certainly over many other Latin Americans who don’t have it so easy. It is also, ostensibly, one of the world’s oldest democracies. So if it has problems, it owes them first to themselves, rather than some nutty tyrant. Why do liberals hate the rest of the world so much that they don’t want the poor, downtrodden, victimized people of the world to benefit the way they want Mexicans to? Why are liberals so racist?
No? Ok, try this. We believe that merit is what counts. You should get here because we want you here and need you here. Now, we already have our poor. Basic economics says that if you add supply, you will lower the price demanded. So, should we add unskilled, uneducated workers from Mexico and diminish the demand for the labor of our own poor, or should we increase the supply of educated labor from places like Europe and Asia to compete at the top of our pay scales, driving down their wages and shortening the dreaded income gap that liberals dread so much? Obviously, it would be the latter. So why, then, do liberals hate the poor so much that they want to make their lives even harder than it already is? Why do liberals want to increase the wealth gap in America?
Don’t hand me that excuse that Mexico is closer to America than anywhere else. That’s just a lottery. That’s like inheriting wealth. And we all know that’s the most evil thing of all. Unless you’re a Kennedy. Then it’s Camelotty.
“When immigration restrictionists — a posse made up of folks who are put off by the browning of America and pining away for the days of Leave It to Beaver …”
Dude, you lost the argument right there.
First of all, you say “restrictionist” like it’s a bad thing.
(Never mind the long lines of visa seekers at every American embassy in the world, in countries where America is the Great Satan or His Little Brother. Never did figure THAT one out.)
Do you really think people who want to control immigration numbers are intentionally racist? Okay, the bigoted ones, maybe — but they’re a small (very small) minority. And you’re smart enough to know that.
Second of all, worrying about immigration goes a LOT farther than simple nostalgia.
It does NO GOOD to pre-emptively and pejoratively label your audience before they listen to your argument.
Journalism — indeed, essay writing — 101.
Oh dear. Not again. When will folks stop taking the bait?
Ruben Navarrette Jr’s writing, on this issue at least, morphed into the rank sophistry of a Ron Rosenbaum long ago – which says quite a bit about the editorial standards of the San Diego Union Tribune, of whose editorial board he is a member.
It remains true that one should not feed trolls. Get a clue folks.
Mr. Navarrette …..it was a much safer place when the white population was at 90 % Sorry lad but implying it wasn’t doesn’t change that simple truth. In 1963 our population stood at about 190 million and we were 90 % white the number of murders were about 4,500. Today our population stands at about 310 million and our murder rate is about 15,000 a year. Our population increased by about 65 % ( mostly because of both legal and illegal immigration ) but our murder rate more than tripled. Well as I said in 1963 our population was 90 % white today our population is about 65 % white and 35 % minority today. So our murder rate more than tripled at the same time our minority population more than triples. And here is another simple truth from the Dept of Justice ….since 1976 59.3 % of all felony murders committed in the U.S. have been committed by African Americans. If one assumes that hispanics commit murders at least at the rate in which they are represented in the general population ( 18 % ) and when includes other ( Native American, Asian”s ) then at least 80 % of ALL murders in the U.S. are being committed by minorities. One other thing when looking at the B of J crime numbers you will not find a grouping for Hispanic those numbers are included under white crime numbers. Which does inflates white crime numbers and wipes out hispanic crime numbers. SO keep that in mind when viewing any crime study using government numbers
HERE’S AN EXCERPT FROM A REPORT CALLED “ITS NOT ALL ABOUT NATIVISM,” ON THE VIEWS OF THE LATE JOHN HIGHAM, THE DEAN OF U.S. IMMIGRATION SCHOLARS AND THE AUTHOR OF THE CLASSIC WORK ON NATIVISM (STRANGERS AMONG US)
http://www.cis.org/higham
As immigration scholars Peter Skerry and Noah Pickus have noted, John Higham’s Strangers in the Land “continues to be widely and approvingly cited by those concerned with underscoring the history of prejudice and intolerance toward newcomers in the United States.”6
Yet, Skerry and Pickus also noted that Higham explicitly rejected efforts to frame as nativists those who favor more restrictive immigration policies.
As they cited “the social strains and disorder that inevitably accompany any movement of large numbers of unskilled migrants into advanced democratic societies,” Skerry and Pickus noted concerns Higham expressed after publication of his landmark book.7
Indeed, Higham expressed his concerns about massive illegal immigration and the efforts of ethnic and business leaders to thwart attempts to contain it. He worried that in the absence of firm but measured efforts to manage illegal immigration, rising public frustration would lead to the sort of virulent displays of anti-immigrant feeling that he chronicled in Strangers in the Land.
As Congress debated immigration policy in the 1980s and 1990s, Higham warned that U.S. policies were promoting divisiveness by limiting the diversity of immigration sources that had helped the country avoid the ethnic cleavages that beset other countries.
As we will see, Higham warned of the need to enforce immigration laws in order to maintain comity and respect for the law. He expressed concern that narrowing economic opportunities for unskilled workers would constrain the social mobility that he saw as vital to the health of American society. Finally, he was concerned that multiculturalism would undermine the benign nationalism that he saw as an alternative to nativism and weaken immigrants’ identification with their adopted homeland
Why is the propagandist Navarrette even posted on pajamasmedia? His regurgitated lies are like the spew of hate from the “stop the hate” crowd, and trying to find truth in what he says, is like trying to find “illegal alien” on the la raza website.
You’re at risk of losing me as a reader.
Dear Richard, It’s one thing to tell us, but we don’t hire this jerk.
Please click on the CONTACT US link at the bottom of this page and tell PJM directly what you think.
I just discovered this website and I am very impressed. The articles are timely,well-written and don’t simply regurgitate the articles from various aggretgators. Consider me a regular reader
Navarette is the vilest of racists. It is not racist to restrict immigration. We do it now, we only allow 1.2 million legal immigrants a year into the United States. According to Navarette, that is racist because it limits legal immigration. The funny thing is that he supports immigration at this level. So, he is calling himself a racist. But it is not racist to restrict immigration to 500,000 a year, or 10,000, or whatever. It is also not racist to change immigrants makeup to one from the less educated and unskilled to one requiring all immigrants to have a university degree, or speak English, or whatever.
Navarette just hates America and whites. And his only arguement for any of his positions is that anyone who opposes whatever opinion of the day he has is a racist.
Accusations of racism are the first refuge of the scoundrel, and the racist.
Yes, it’s true. We don’t want waves of foreigners migrating to our country anymore. Nor does any other country. Deal with it. People just say they support legal immigration to be politically correct when they really want less immigration from the violent, stupid and corrupt 3rd world. *shrug* You can try and white guilt and “racist!” trip us all you want. It won’t matter. People are sick of seeing their areas invaded by 3rd world garbage. They’d rather be called racist then having more ethnic gangs ruining their once serene towns and areas.
The author is the racist. I am against any illegal and yet I have married a girl who was not a US citizen, she is now. This author cannot prove anything so just projects his faults on to the rest of us. For shame your racism, Mr. Navarrette.
Someone should ask Mr. Navarette if, since there is no difference between legal and illegal immigration, then what other laws should we feel free to disregard. His simplistic argument that anti-illegal immigration is nothing but racism is supported by no facts and precious little logic, aside from his own biased interpretation. Presumably, he’d argue that those who think Obamacare is unconstitutional are only motivatd by hatred of the poor.
A nation is governed by its laws. Once the government itself seeks to subvert law, the legitimacy of all laws is brought into question.
@Biker Dad Don’t worry, pretty soon the Mexicans(or anyone else) won’t want to come in (illegally or otherwise) because all this country will have is the money of the rich and the rich won’t be able to invest it because there will be nothing in which to invest in the US. Ahh the great illegal emigration!!