We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, May 1. 2007
Today is Illegal Alien Rally Day - a day which mocks American sovereignty and which celebrates the exploitation of American soft-heartedness and soft-headedness.
Boortz has some hard-headed ideas about how to deal with it.
One of two Mexican families have relatives in the US, Drudge reports. Does that mean that if illegals are given citizenship, half the population of Mexico could move to the US? Remittances to families in Mexico is Mexico's second largest source of foreign currency, after oil, and far ahead of tourism.
Linknzona looks at the crime mess in the Southwest, created by illegals. Of course, they are all criminals by definition anyway.
We have 623,000 released alien fugitives in the US. Michelle.
From a year ago, Mark Helprin on The Unvarnished Immigration Debate in the WaPo. A quote:
Working in Mexico: The following is a re-post from about a year ago. A comment from a director with Southwest Bell in Mexico City.
I spent five years working in Mexico. I worked under a tourist visa for three months and could legally renew it for three more months. After that you were working illegally. I was technically illegal for three weeks waiting on the FM3 approval.
During that six months our Mexican and US Attorneys were working to secure a permanent work visa called a FM3. It was in addition to my US passport that I had to show each time I entered and left the country. Barbara's was the same except hers did not permit her to work.
To apply for the FM3 I needed to submit the following notarized originals (not copies) of my:
1. Birth certificates for Barbara and me.
2. Marriage certificate.
3. High school transcripts and proof of graduation.
4. College transcripts for every college I attended and proof of graduation.
5. Two letters of recommendation from supervisors I had worked for at least one year.
6. A letter from The St. Louis Chief of Police indicating I had no arrest record in the US and no outstanding warrants and was "a citizen in good standing."
7. Finally; I had to write a letter about myself that clearly stated why there was no Mexican citizen with my skills and why my skills were important to Mexico. We called it our "I am the greatest person on earth" letter. It was fun to write. All of the above were in English that had to be translated into Spanish and be certified as legal translations and our signatures notarized. It produced a folder about 1.5 inches thick with English on the left side and Spanish on the right.
(The remainder of his note on continuation page below)
Once they were completed Barbara and I spent about five hours accompanied by a Mexican attorney touring Mexican government office locations and being photographed and fingerprinted at least three times. At each location (and we remember at least four locations) we were instructed on Mexican tax, labor, housing, and criminal law and that we were required to obey their laws or face the consequences. We could not protest any of the government's actions or we would be committing a felony. We paid out four thousand dollars in fees and bribes to complete the process. When this was done we could legally bring in our household goods that were held by US customs in Laredo Texas. This meant we rented furniture in Mexico while awaiting our goods. There were extensive fees involved here that the company paid.
We could not buy a home and were required to rent at very high rates and under contract and compliance with Mexican law.
We were required to get a Mexican drivers license. This was an amazing process. The company arranged for the licensing agency to come to our headquarters location with their photography and fingerprint equipment and the laminating machine. We showed our US license, were photographed and fingerprinted again and issued the license instantly after paying out a six dollar fee. We did not take a written or driving test and never received instructions on the rules of the road. Our only instruction was never give a policeman your license if stopped and asked. We were instructed to hold it against the inside window away from his grasp. If he got his hands on it you would have to pay ransom to get it back.
We then had to pay and file Mexican income tax annually using the number of our FM3 as our ID number. The company’s Mexican accountants did this for us and we just signed what they prepared. It was about twenty legal size pages annually.
The FM 3 was good for three years and renewable for two more after paying more fees.
Leaving the country meant turning in the FM# and certifying we were leaving no debts behind and no outstanding legal affairs (warrants, tickets or liens) before our household goods were released to customs.
It was a real adventure and if any of our senators or congressmen went through it once they would have a different attitude toward Mexico.
The Mexican Government uses its vast military and police forces to keep its citizens intimidated and compliant. They never protest at their White House or government offices, but do protest daily in front of the United States Embassy. The US embassy looks like a strongly reinforced fortress and during most protests the Mexican Military surround the block with their men standing shoulder to shoulder in full riot gear to protect the Embassy. These protests are never shown on US or Mexican TV. There is a large public park across the street where they do their protesting. Anything can cause a protest, such as proposed law changes in California or Texas.
It’s May Day, let’s all go break a law!
Well, today is May Day, and the libtards are out leading the pro-illegal immigration rallies around the country. Demonstrators demanding a path to citizenship for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants hope that nationwide marches will spur Congres...
Weblog: Saying the things you want to, but can't
Tracked: May 01, 11:06
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Isn't it a bloody damned shame that there was nobody here to protect us from the Irish, the Slavs. the Brits, and all of the other ugly hordes that have screwed the place up so badly?
Ten will get you twenty that you probably drive a volvo,plus what history books are you reading?
I drvie a Ford Explorer, I'm reading "Bill and Dave" and another book whose title escapes me about the Dead Sea Scrolls. If it is important I'll go upstairs and get it. I think I finished the one about "Women in the Bible" and the little ones on some subject or other--must not have impressed me much.
Email me for an address for you to send the certified check to.
A tough one! "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians".
Feel bad about not remembering "Once Upon a Town" a history of the Canteen in North Platte. Less bad about not remembering "Connections and Symbols".
And a Dave Barry throw away.
What have you read?
And just to be sure you need to send the check--my wife drives another Explorer, the two tractors are a Sears and a Cadet, New York daughter doesn't own a car, middlest daughter drives a Kenworth and a Honda of some kind, KCMO daughter drives some kind of little red cop-trap (Honda?).
Never had a Volvo in inventory--although I drove one for a while--that was the truck the CDL school had. That was the result of GM going out of the truck business I think.
Those hordes entered legally, with the consent of the nation, and at the nation's invitation.
Big difference between someone entering your house invited vs. uninvited.
Newspaper reports and history books disagree.
Perhaps. We cannot agree with everyone about everything.
As things stand. I think it is up to every nation to determine who enters, when, and why. It's that simple. That is what I believe national sovereignty means.
Europe is presently being invaded by Moslems. The fact that they do not enter armed does not make it any less of an invasion. I know it's legal there, but there is a negative lesson in it: Respect your own borders, and then others will do so to.
My aunt and uncle tried to get permanent residency in Mexico about 20 years ago now. He is an engineer and an inventor, with a sister who was living in the country. They jacked him around for about five years, demanding that he keep more and more money in an account. They finally demanded so much money on hand that he had to give up. Their moving van was pilfered, with many items taken. If Mexico is not willing to allow Americans to have permanent residency, I see no reason why we should allow their citizens to stay.
Yer right. Allowing trash runaways from totalitarian regimes to seek refuge here has ALWAYS been a really bad idea, right from to moment they started unloading their rotten tea here.
What totalitarian regimes?
America is full of Brits, Italians, Scandinavians, Germans, Scots, Irish, Central Americans. None coming from totalitarian countries. The only historical immigrants coming from totalitarian countries were the Jews fleeing Hitler, and Eastern Europeans fleeing communism - but they didn't get out in any large numbers.
How about the Hugonots, Acadians, the Puritans, and I forget how many others?
LS, It's spelled Huguenots. Is there a particular reason why you find the idea of national sovereignty so offensive? I have not heard you so vehement before, so it must be deeply held.
I've lived in Latin America and Europe in days when we knew that we were there on sufferance. We were educated, we used no public services, we spent huge amounts of money in the countries we were working in, learned and spoke only the language of the country we were in, and contributed greatly to their technical skills and material wealth (my father worked for companies owned by nationals of the countries we were in, teaching them American management and financial analysis so their companies would be more profitable). We were not ugly Americans, we socialized chiefly with people native to the countries we were visiting, learned everything we could about their history and traditions. We said nothing in the face of spray painted signs "Yankee Go Home" because my father wanted to share American know-how with the developing world and with less efficient Europeans. We were respectful of the cultures we were privileged to learn about.
And we had to go thru incredible red tape for our visas, knew that we would be deported if we were ever critical of our host country's customs or politics. We didn't think we had an inalienable right to be there.
I feel rather vehemently about the unarmed invasion of Europe and America now going on. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a nation deciding whom it wants to admit, and whom it does not. For example, I thought Great Britain showed great good taste by refusing to give that dreadful rapper Snoop Dogg a visa to come in to the United Kingdom (I think Australia did too) because of his bad character and risk to public safety. And they were perfectly within their rights.
I don't hire illegals, I have friends who have lost livelihoods because of them, and I fear for my country as an ever higher percentage of its residents are here habitually living outside the law. If I worked under the table, and didn't pay my taxes, I would know that I risked jail time, no matter how hard I worked or how valuable my skills to the country. Why should someone from another country who has snuck in get better treatment than me?
Sorry about the mis-spelling--I think I knew it was wrong and was too lazy to go check it.
I am something--I don't think "vehement" is the right word, but I don't know what the right word is at the moment.
I don't see a significant difference between the current immigrant rush and earlier ones--all people trying to escape oppression of one kind or another to what they see as the promised land.
Furthermore, I am very troubled by the pressure of the Gore -fans (although he is really an opportunist parasite on that movement) to say to the "undeveloped" nations "We cut down our rain forests and did a number of other things to become really wealthy [ever think what Gores monthly utility bill--or yours--is in terms of the average Mexican's income?] but we don't want you to do any of that--we want you to be Gloabally Responsible and remain in abject poverty with no way to improve your lot.
I think we (those who think on balance there are more right ideas than wrong ones here) should think a little more about what we are actually advocating.
No I am not "for" anything illegal. But I am of opinion that things that used to be legal are now illegal for reasons that are not clean.
You did a good job stirring the pot here. That's good.
I hate to say it, but I believe the vast majority of immigrants over history came here for economic opportunity and social mobility - not political freedom (not that they aren't related to some extent). Consider the huge waves of Italian and Irish immigrants.
I agree with Retriever that one can go through incredible red tape when living and working in Latin America and elsewhere, in nations that are quietly and unconsciously xenophobic and that get a pass from America for behaving that way. You are right LS in that most immigrants in whatever era have come primarily for economic reasons and the vast majority haven't read the Federalist Papers before making their decision. But a crucial difference between then and now is this - earlier immigrants were coming to a country that expected and required assimilation. Today they come to a country where the elites no longer expect or even desire such assimilation.
Do the the records support the idea that the Irish were welcomed? (Knick knack paddy whack....)
When I was a kid, "Spic" referred to Italians, I think.
And those Japs! Off to the concentration camps! Confiscate their land and other property! (Never mind that they worked hard, had been here for generations, ....)
Do you know where the word "Cajun" comes from?
I really don't think assimilation was a part of any of those pictures.
The mental image I have from reading about those times is identical to what is depicted elsewhere here.
and stirring the pot was not an objective, and if it didn't do any good, it wasn't an asset.
One more thought occurred to me. I re-read all of this group yet again, and came away this time with a different reading of "expected and required assimilation" that I suspect is closer to what was intended that my earlier attempts.
And while I think there was a some degree of expectation I think that it was pretty much like what I see right here--one national language, why can't they sound like us, and so on.
And in my contact with some of the folks here, and my recollection of some California elections a few years ago, and my memories from when I was little (I grew up in a barrio), it is not the immigrants that insist on anything but English in the schools, it is not the immigrants that wall themselves off, an so on.
And when you travel to other countries, do you speak the local language?
In another forum we were discussing the tests immigrants have to pass in order to become naturalized. (Do you know the form number for applying for naturalization? Do you know its correct title? What does the First amendment speak to?)
One person compared it to the one he had to take to become a Dutch citizen. In English.
Glad to hear more of your views, LS! Thanks. I absolutely agree about the hypocrisy of expecting people in the Third world to live in abject poverty to suit green sensibilities better. My ancestors cleared forest to plant vegetables and I celebrate their virtues. Is a Brazilian farmer any less hardworking or devoted to his family?
Agree that the expectation of assimilation in the past was the key.
Have an upset kid to comfort, so forgive the incomplete response, please... but lots to think of, thanks to you all
And I hope the upset was not a serious matter and that recovery has been accomplished.
LS - I didn't grow up in the barrio, but I am half Hispanic. And I see very little cultural connection between the Hispanics back then and the more recent arrivals inhabiting our urban ghettos with its drugs and crime.
"it is not the immigrants that insist on anything but English in the schools, it is not the immigrants that wall themselves off, an so on..."
That's right, at least historically. I have read that Hispanic immigrants certainly have been eager to learn English and are (or were) among the most vociferous opponents of bilingual education in my home state of California. And that goes along with my impressions of the Hispanic side of my family when I was growing up. It is the present-day US elites and their Hispanic hangers-on that insist on bilingual education in part because they see the Balkanization of America as somehow romantic and desirable. We will see if this works. I have worked in the Balkans and an overly developed sense of ethnic identity hasn't been very productive there or anyplace else.
There is an immigrant community here in what is a small town on the edge of Omaha (just got gobbled up by Omaha). I have no idea which ones are legal and which are not.
I do know that they all work long and hard, including long and hard in the volunteer organizations (like COPE that I know a little about) trying to help them. I don't ever see anything that resembles the ugly picture that was up here earlier today.
I grew up in a barrio in Los Angeles, but I am not Hispanic (pure-blood mongrel is what I tell people I am--my father thought he was Scotch Irish, my mother might have a French background but there were ugly arguments there might be Indian involvement (one of my many bigoted aunts said once she would rather find out she was part nigger that part injun. But that is another story for another day.)
I'm sticking with the pure-blooded mongrel story.
And by the way--speaking of assimilation and all--does anybody here recall the tales of the settling of the San Joaquin Valley in California. Know anyting about how the people from Oklahoma (was part of our country in those days) were treated? Or the Armenians around Fresno? BoyHowdy. Talk about ugly.
Should have been more careful witht the typs, but I won't labor y'all with fixing them all--but I did want to clear up that my mother is no longer with us here so I should have said "...might have had..."
And what I have heard about her escape from Central Mississippi in the the 30's would turn your stomach.
Gah! Can't even post about typo's without pretty much destroying readability!
[10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 don't see any typo's]
LS, you make a persuasive argument re history and assimilation. I agree with a lot of what you say. But I think things are different, somehow, nowadays. In the end all I want is a gate. I want to know who is coming to visit or stay. I'm not particularly concerned about an unblemished criminal record, nor a less educated past, nor religion, nor politics nor any of a hundred other barriers that can be used as obstacles. I just want some control placed on numbers and identities. We cannot absorb the whole world or even a great portion of it, and in this different world we live in now, we need to know WHO wishes too enter this country. We can't risk the luxury of 'open' borders just now. Though it is perhaps already too late, barn doors and all.
Oh, oh. Now we have to deal with the subject of over crowding and it's diminishing effects on individual, and community. Never had to do that before. Woops, what do you mean every acre of ground will hold an unlimited number of human beings--doesn't do that for cows, or deer, or elk. There really are numerical observations that predict a very unpleasant picture--kinda like living in the slums of Brazil. Soon folks, real soon.