June 1, 2007


Outsiders Like Us (Robert Stacy McCain, 6/1/2007, American Spectator)

The category "immigrant" encompasses too great a diversity for the term "anti-immigrant" to have any useful meaning in the present debate.

...it's that the nativists who opposed our ancestors coming here were wrong, but when we oppose the next wave of immigrants, we're right.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 1, 2007 7:21 AM

That's different, OJ. Previous groups were closer to our culture, the the Chinese. They did not form enclaves of their culture and keep speaking their old language for generations(except for french, german, or yiddish, of course, they don't count for reasons I've never followed). They left the old hate and feuds in the old country, coming here for a fresh start(except for the Irish and the Italians, of course, who don't count.....)
Yes, these new groups are doing things we've never seen before, and that's why we need to turn America into a police state, and make every true American a officer of that state, because these people have broken the law, and nothing is more important then the law! Some would say that if so many people are breaking the law that it's an act of civil disobedience, and the law should be changed, but we know better. Remember when the Republicans turned their backs on a hundred years of civil rights work because people were breaking the law? Yes, it might have delivered a whole community into the hands of their worse enemies, given the Democrats unbreakable control of Congress for years, allowing them to triple the size of government and strip us of many of our God given rights, but people now understand that the Republicans were just upholding the Law, right. If we on the right can get our act together and do that again, I think it will work out as well as it did last time. We need to think about the future people!

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at June 1, 2007 10:20 AM

The oath of American citizenship includes the line:

"Repeat after me: The trouble with America is too many d@mn foreigners!"

Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger at June 1, 2007 12:24 PM

Mr. Ptah, why do you think I didn't write the second paragraph? I believe it follows the theme of the first one, even if there is a bit of a jump.
Second, all the people I've heard from who complain about ILLEGAL immigrants also are very unhappy about the plan to make them legal. Your side seems to be the evasive ones.... Perhaps the issue of illegality is something we have discussed, only to be ignored by people caught up in the heat of the mob, so I will try once again.
First, there is a difference(In some people's view) between ILLEGAL(Murder, Rape, Grand Theft, etc) and illegal(speeding, painting your house purple, using the n word, using a 10-40, etc.). To exile someone because they couldn't navigate the paperwork seems excessive. Speeders, of course, (with the chance of Murder in their offense are far more dangerous then any paperwork error) are also to be exiled? I'm out, how about you?
Again, I ask, why are you as a conservative so eager to be a stormtrooper for evil racist liberal regulations? Why do you think the Left is able to tar the Right with the Fascist label so easily? If you want people to follow laws, they must be just. That's a right wing position, why do you keep mocking it? Did you learn nothing from the Civil rights fight? Republicans spent a hundred years fighting Democrat Jim Crow laws and Democrat literacy tests and failed. A few years of Civil Disobedience and everything changed, and Republicans have been called the party of racists ever since, because people like you made sure that the face of the Republican party was complaining about the laws being broken(the Republicans had not passed the laws, had works for years to remove the laws, but the Law must be respected above Freedom, Live, and Liberty?)

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at June 1, 2007 1:14 PM

Mr. Ptah, thanks for replying. No, no editing by OJ, just a bored little nut gathering dust.
One, I call the immigration laws racist because they are. It is part of the text in the laws(regulations) in question, thanks to the quotas set into law by the Democrats. It's like comparing apples to apples in a bag. Because they are not citizens yet, the Democrats didn't have to hid their racism like they did with Jim Crow and the Literacy tests(neither of which were formally racist, wink, wink, nug nug.)
Two, neither document 'allows' civil disobedience. The right of armed revolt, yes. But Mexico is not oppressive, just static. Civil war is probably a bad idea, which is why no one but dead end marxists are pushing the idea(in Mexico). I am not yet sold on The idea that an aristocratic bureacracy is better than an aristocratic oligarchy, so the talk of who is more deserving of being replaced is perhaps unwise.
Three, sorry, twelve years and twenty thousands dollars to become a legal citizen(averages) is not a test it's oppressive. The INS can't even get it right for natural born Americans. My sister was born on a Navy base in Rota, Spain. My dad was born in Colorado, my mother in Nebraska. Three years ago my father was getting his security level renewed and the government asked him why he had adopted a foreign national. They had more then thirty years, and still couldn't get it right. It's quite the little scandal in the military community how often this stuff happens(My dad was captain of a boomer. You would think they would try extra hard to get it right!). So your argument falls on deaf ears. Get the INS working, get the application process to take a week, and I'll listen. Until then, I put your argument in the same box I put the argument that the Eastern block was not totalitarian because people were allowed to immigrate once they had gotten the paperwork straight. I have little respect for the actively ignorant.
Forth, I made it quite clear I was calling you a stormtrooper. The only one hear calling you a racist is you.... I am asking why you are so eager to be tared as a racist, as the Democrats are already doing. Upholding racist laws passed by the Democrats makes you look stupid at best, racist at worst.
This nation has been a nation of men, not laws for years now. If this was a nation of laws, Ted Kennedy would have gone to jail. If this were a nation of laws, the smut laws would be cleanly defined, not "I know it when I see it"(See Japan for an example of how it can be done). If this were a nation of laws, I would not hear "that's not how we do it here" from customs. For someone who claims to be for Law, you have picked an odd line in the sand. "Illegal Immigration" is low on my list of threats to freedom. Fighting the IRS would make you look like a good guy and do more to advance freedom. Again, why are you and yours so eager to pick a cause that is doomed to fail and makes you look so bad?

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at June 1, 2007 3:38 PM

Mr. Ptah, once again, thanks for your thoughts.
First, this is OJ's website, not a oppressive totalitarian society. His soapbox, his rules.
Second, ?
Third, Any system will be gamed. That doesn't change the fact the the immigration laws are racist and the INS is a complete failure as an organization. Also, your example of gaming the system is odd. Marrying to become a citizen is legal, and that's what all the fuss is about, right? Illegal bad, Legal good. Bad form to complain about loopholes when people use them, people may start to think you have a problem with immigration, not just illegal immigration. Again, choose your battles!
Forth, to quote WOC, " A rule nobody uses isn't a rule...". If "we" don't get our way, nothing will happen. You would have to get federal stations at each boat dock in the country to close the borders in a serious sense, and that would over a hundred thousand stations with about ten men each, none of who would be corrupt or lazy. You would have to get people to stop hiring immigrants, feeding them, or helping them, and that's not something you'll stop anytime soon. Between the arrests on one side(His papers looked good to me!) and the lawsuits on the other(Your honor, papers can be forged, and I didn't want to break the law!) it would be chaos to enforce inside the borders. Passing laws that can't be enforced is more likely to break something then people coming here to work. What they did to you? What have the class of people who have come here "illegally" done to you?
Something breaking? I agree, which is why Laws should be few, believed in by a majority of community and passed in a calm, reasoned manner. I am the one talking about consequences. In politics you have to pick your fights. What to you think the Consequences of choosing this issue as the poster child for ENFORCING THE LAW? Do you think that kicking families out of their homes, putting them into prison and onto trains out of the country is going to increase people's respect for the law when they watch the news? "If it bleeds it leads". Do you think the networks wouldn't cover that? Do you think the Democrats will take the hit? What are the Consequences of the Republicans losing power for a generation? Yes, Clinton. One law for Clinton, Kennedy, Byrd, Gore(yes Democrats all....) One law for the rest of us. So to get people to respect the law again you want to destroy families, exile children, and make us look like we're ethnic cleansing on the world stage? Why not speeders? they hurt people, you know, directly as opposed to in a urban myth sense. It's easy to demonize bad people, remember what happened to drunk drivers. Again, pick your fights! Favorable ground is a Good idea!
Yes, Yes, you're right, they are wrong, and you Will Not Bend! That's why the Left keeps winning and why the Right keeps losing. If you don't get all of what you want, right now, you will abandon the field. That's why so many on the Right hate Bush. He bent, and got most of what he wanted. He got stuff the Right had been trying for years to get. But he bent. You will not forgive, or forget. "Better to reign in Hell then to serve in Heaven" is a great governing philosophy, for Losers......
The civil disobedience I am talking about is not the immigrants, it is the Americans who are hiring them, feeding them, and generally helping them. We will not stop, and you will have to jail us. It will be your hand seen holding the Key. Will jailing people for feeding hungry children advance your cause? Again, choose your battles!
As to your second comment, I don't think I am making it worse. It's just when I start to climb a mountain, I start at the bottom. When I pick fruit, I pick the lowest ones first. Do you really think that "Illegal" immigration is the worse problem we have now? The most popular one? The one that looks best on TV? This is where you draw the line? Must be nice to live in Utopia, if people coming into the country too quickly is your big, nasty, ugly problem.
As to the "Wrong Men in Power", the wrong men are always in power. That is the genius of the balance of power the founders set up. It doesn't work so well if one side is "Too Pure to Touch the Base Clay".

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at June 1, 2007 8:08 PM

Robert, glad to see you back commenting.

Posted by: erp at June 2, 2007 8:34 PM

Thanks, Mrs. Erp. I've been hear, just going "me too" to OJ is not much fun. It's just this issue bugs me. Why are so many good people willing, eager, to be cast as "Judge Dredd"? Why aren't we(the Republicans) leaving the trains full of people to be taken into the forest and shot to the Democrats? I thought we were the Pro Life people.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at June 2, 2007 9:23 PM