Katie’s Dad 2.0

I do not look for this stuff but I keep finding it. Were this not such a serious subject, I’d liken my sudden fixation on learning the country of origin of those providing “objective” expository advice about American immigration reform to playing a game of Whack-A-Mole. But this is serious stuff; it appears there really are vermin in my nation’s root cellar, like this one I’m about to Fisk here.

The guy in the picture is the provider of the current load of rat droppings in our intellectual grain elevator: He’s Alvaro Vargas Llosa, a Peruvian immigrant with dual American citizenship. He works for a Libertarian think-tank, so it does not surprise that he has no issue with technically being in violation of his American citizenship oath by maintaining his dual allegiance. I’ll go out on a limb and suppose that based on his place of employ there is enough pure libertarianism in him to foster ambivalence about the end of things like borders and sovereignty and heritage. It’s just a hunch that what lurks in his alien-origin noggin isn’t considerate at all about children like Katie’s futures.

The arrogance and sheer number of foreigners who feel it is somehow their right to use whatever bully-pulpit they can access to attempt to influence the decisions of our leaders regarding immigration policy are serious cause for alarm. There is nothing more sinister to me than a fifth-columnist like Llosa; for every one with the audacity to write in an attempt convince us to roll over and die as a culture, there must be many more thinking the same way. This puts the lie to the notion that we have anything approaching proper assimilation going on in this nation. We have not for quite some time.

Anyone so obviously proved to be a lying sack of feces by keeping dual allegiances intact, we must from the start consider whatever advice he might have for us to be very suspect.

TCS Daily - Conservatism Has Always Been Pro Immigration

Hardly a week goes by that I don’t come into contact with an illegal immigrant somewhere in Washington, D.C. And this is by no means the area with the largest concentration of such immigrants in the United States. The stories are always compelling.

For me, seldom does a day go by that I don’t encounter an American child whose public school is teaching to a level far below that to which my generation was taught thanks to the importation of near-functionally-retarded-level, alingual children of illegal alien peasants who think less of education than they do of the rule of law. Unfortunately, their more relevant and compelling stories are almost never told by the MSM.

A few weeks ago, Rosita, a Bolivian in her late 40s, told me how on her journey to the United States, she was raped in Guatemala and swindled in Mexico, and how she had to cross the desert into this country after losing a brother who was killed because he refused to pay the “coyote” a larger fee than had originally been agreed. She then went through a health ordeal and was forced to have a hysterectomy in a low-cost clinic that helps immigrants. The operation went horribly wrong and she spent six months fighting for her life. Her two sons are in Bolivia, where she plans to return when she saves enough money to pay her debts. She works 12 hours a day, seven days a week, cleaning houses, doing errands for third parties, and baby-sitting. “In what way am I a criminal?” she asked me.

She’s here illegally, numbnuts. And she would not have had such an “ordeal” if she did not have the intent to denigrate this nation’s laws and sovereignty. You want me to cry her a river? Fat chance.

Of course, she has broken U.S. immigration laws. But she is, like 12 million other illegal immigrants, the victim of a gross illusion — the illusion that the laws of supply and demand can be obliterated by an act of political will. “Humankind cannot bear very much reality,” wrote T.S. Eliot in one of his quartets. He might have been talking about immigration in the 21st century.

The law of supply and demand worked fine when we actually did enforce our borders and the hiring of illegal alien serfs was not sanctioned by our government’s failures. As far as the Eliot quote, it would be far more applicable to those harmed by the presence of illegal alien Diasporas leeching off our system, lowering the expected life of our public infrastructure, unraveling the standards of care in our health system, destroying classroom effectiveness and exploding our prison populations. If we truly cannot bear very much reality, then Eliot more likely would have been referring to the millions of untold stories of misery beset upon American citizens by this invasion of the serfs. What puts the largest lie to your argument is the fact that you can wax poetic about this criminal alien’s plight and it mirrors what our co-opted leaders and compliantly coercive press demand we consider first, before we consider our own best interests.

The latest agreement between the White House and a bipartisan group of legislators notwithstanding, the emotional obfuscation that has replaced sensible thinking regarding this issue continues to make it very hard to expect a reasonable immigration bill in the middle of a presidential campaign.

You’re right. Thousands of Mexicans demanding rights in America’s streets, marching and carrying Mexican flags have served to somewhat obfuscate the desires of American citizens to whom our leaders are supposed to answer. Actually, its hard to expect a reasonable immigration bill so long as the pandering f-tards in Washington are allowed to continue to “serve us.” It’s proof we need to replace our leaders before our leaders succeed in replacing us!

Not even totalitarian societies have been able to root out social realities deemed undesirable — hence the pervasive alcoholism in Russia during the Soviet period. Whenever there is a disconnect between the law and reality, reality finds ways of making the law irrelevant. During most of the 300 years of its colonial era, Spain tried to impose draconian monopoly conditions on commerce in Spanish America. The result was that smuggling accounted for two-thirds of all trade in the colonies. Today, a number of Latin American constitutions make Catholicism the official church, and yet, as I mentioned in a recent column, in real life a plurality of religions has managed to penetrate the Latin American soul in recent decades.

You bring up a lot of perfect examples of failed governments, societies and cultures. But to use them as straw-men in comparison to the American experience, this “Cittee on the hill,” reveals your incredible ignorance about this nation’s heritage. Now, about that dual citizenship of yours? May I remind you again that you are a lying sack of excrement?

It is always hard to oppose an emotional reaction with logical arguments and statistical evidence. Otherwise, the argument for the decriminalization of immigrants and a policy that helped match future demand for migrant workers with future supply would have been won long ago.

No, it’s not. However, since discussing the statistics of the gaps between American achievement, IQ, historical cultural success in holding on to temperate liberty and legendary levels of innovation are so overwhelmingly in opposition to the mass-importation of worker-peons, these artifacts of our heritage have been deemed politically incorrect. If we still could wield them in fair debate, rather than arguing about the importation of serfs, we’d be arguing about which innovative machines and techniques we should adopt as standards for replacing all forms of unskilled labor.

In a country with an unemployment rate of 4.5 percent, who can seriously maintain that immigrants take jobs away from the natives? In a country where many of the states with the highest number of immigrants, such as New York and Florida, have unemployment rates below the national average, who can seriously accuse immigrants of displacing Americans? In a country where half a million immigrants come in illegally every year because the million that come in legally are not enough to match the high demand for foreign workers on the part of American businesses, who can seriously maintain that the immigration debate is mostly a debate between law-abiding Americans and law-breaking aliens?

What about those who need two jobs thanks to depressed wages for low-skilled Americans, but can’t find them? If we truly let the market decide the proper wage, rather than allowing corrupt businessmen to tinker with the basis of wage equations, many of those who currently need two jobs would be able to get by on one. Their kids would surely be better off for having more parent-time. You point to two sides of the poison pill created by the symbiotic relationship between amoral corporations and the imbeciles imported to serve them and call it a debate. The real debate is between those of us who cherish America’s heritage, like me, and those who would collude to undermine and bury it, like you, Alvaro. But the press won’t cover it, so I’m reduced to embarassing you in the ether.

And yet, these arguments would never persuade a politician such as Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., because he fears his constituents would never forgive him. The result is a colossal ideological inconsistency.

Tom isn’t going to cave, primarily because he thinks about my kids before he thinks about the desires of some dual-allegiant scumbag who can string a couple of incomplete thoughts together and call it an essay.

Conservatism — and Tancredo calls himself a quintessential conservative — has always been pro immigration. From Edmund Burke, the Anglo-Irish philosopher and politician considered the father of conservative thinking, to Ronald Reagan, who had no qualms with the word “amnesty” when millions of immigrants were legalized under his watch in 1986, conservatives have understood that spontaneous social interactions and institutions are what make nations healthy, prosperous and peaceful. It is those social customs — and not bureaucracies detached from reality — that make the law. For conservatives, a real legislator is someone who pays close attention to social norms and tries to adapt to them.

This part is the main reason I fisked you. First, do not attempt to co-opt Burke as somehow being on your side. Edmund Burke cautioned against radical change more than anything else. That’s why he supported the American Revolution and opposed the French Revolution. He recognized America’s fight as one to maintain the status quo borne of a culture that had become unique over the generations spanning 175 years. When after generations of benign rule, the crown tried to reign-in and subjugate people accustomed to their own innovative ways of liberty and self-government, Burke saw our cause as just. He disdained the French Revolution because it was radical and insisted on replacing the long-standing regime and ripping apart the social order. Without a doubt, Burke would rail against amnesty as being the imposition of a radical clevage through the social order. You also misrepresent Ronald Reagan; it is well known that Reagan expected the law to be enforced or he would not have signed that horrific law. Today’s fiasco would, according to his still-living confidants, be his greatest regret.

You obviously don’t know squat about conservatism, or if you do, you are being quite the con-artist. To posit that conservatives believe “spontaneous social interactions and institutions are what make nations healthy, prosperous and peaceful” is the height of arrogance! And it just furthers your rotten pack of lies.

The hallmarks of America’s traditional conservatism as it was advised by Burke are: the Prudence that any public act must be judged by its potential long-run consquences; being aware of what Prescription can be learned by being a faithful and mindful steward for nation and culture and heritage; and, always maintaining a posture of reasonable Prejudice that is protective of both the past and the future. It’s important to note here that Prejudice did not always carry the negative connotation that political correctness has embued it with, and it did not have such a narrow meaning.

Your use of Conservative Icons as human shields for the vile stew you wish to pour into the melting pot is absurd and insulting to my heritage. And you don’t care about that a bit, lending further proof to my contention that people like you should never have been allowed to take the oath of citizenship. There are not proper words to describe my disgust for the notion that your vote carries the same weight as mine. You are nothing but a corrupter of my heritage and a despoiler of my family’s franchise.

In what way am I a criminal?” asks Rosita, who does not have the least problem in finding an American willing to employ her every time she needs to change jobs, and who believes in hard work, thrift, family, and realistic laws. The melancholy answer is: She is just a civil heroine ahead of her time.

Heroine my ass! She’s an illegal alien who should be rounded up and deported with extreme prejudice. And those who facilitate her imposition on this nation’s graces by keeping her employed should spend a couple of years in jail for each and every one they have hired the way they hired her.

I’m sure that you expected to push people’s buttons and draw out blind compassion by telling us about poor little Rosita’s “plight.” Well, you failed here, buddy. The Rositas of the world are screwing with my child’s future. To put it bluntly, and not that I wish it, but the most painfully honest truth in all this is that American kids benefit when someone like Rosita dies in the desert.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Assimilation, Culture, Fisking, Immigration, Sovereignty