Re: They want your job, your property, and your country

[Iconoclast]

"Graphic Queen" <pa...@pagan.com> wrote in message
news:ph0t331865ia4ujdv...@4ax.com...
> by Nicholas Stix
> Illegal Immigrants March Again!
> May 06, 2007 01:41 PM EST
>
>
>
> They want your job, your property, and your country.
>
> Last Tuesday, Americans again saw thousands (but at least this time,
> not millions) of criminals take to the streets, demanding recognition
> of their "right" to continue committing crimes. The criminals were
> supposedly also "boycotting America."
>
> I am speaking, of course, of illegal immigrants, aka undocumented
> immigrants, aka undocumented workers, aka unauthorized migrants, aka
> Mexican nationals, whose number may be as high as 30 million - 22
> million adults who have invaded this country since the previous mass
> amnesty in 1986, and as many as eight million children whom female
> illegal aliens have borne in this country during that time, and which
> have been improperly defined by the federal courts, in violation of
> the Fourteenth Amendment, as "American citizens."
>
> In a sane, just society, upon hearing of such a massive mobilization
> of criminals, the authorities would mobilize virtually every local,
> state, and federal law enforcement officer, as well as the National
> Guard, bottle up all the parade routes in cities across the nation,
> block the side streets and, section by section, bearing plastic
> handcuffs, arrest all of the suspects. Reporters would show the
> arrests on live TV, exclaiming each time, "They got another one!" The
> suspects would then be bused in convoys to tent cities on the
> outskirts of each city, until their legal status could be determined.
>
> Any suspect determined to be an American citizen or lawful permanent
> resident alien, would be released just as soon as buses became
> available for non-deportation. Of course, that might take a while.
>
> Anyone determined to be in the country illegally, but not wanted on
> any criminal warrants, or previously deported, would be deported
> within days, after signing a letter acknowledging that being found in
> America at any future time would result in his immediate imprisonment
> as a felon, as per federal immigration law. (I am not fantasizing
> here; according to current federal immigration law, it is a felony for
> any foreign national previously deported from the U.S. to re-enter it
> without permission from the federal government. That the federal
> government has for years refused to enforce federal law is not my
> fault.) Anyone determined to be in the country illegally, and to have
> previously been deported, would immediately be imprisoned as a felon.
>
> "But what about their civil rights?!" critics will demand to know.
> They're illegal aliens; they don't have civil rights! "Civil rights"
> are the rights due citizens.
>
> As soon as the felon in question completed his prison sentence, he
> would be deported to his own nation, again as per current U.S.
> immigration law.
>
> Anyone who was determined to be in the country illegally, to have
> previously been deported, and to be wanted for additional crimes,
> would immediately be imprisoned as a felon, and bound over for trial
> on the additional charges. Regardless of the disposition of the
> additional charges, he would do hard time as an immigration felon;
> should he be convicted of the other charges, he would serve his
> sentences consecutively, not concurrently, after which, should he
> still be alive, he would be deported to his own nation.
>
> That's the way a sane, just nation would handle things. (In Mexico,
> for instance, foreign nationals, including those legally there, are
> not permitted to demonstrate against the government. All foreign
> nationals who do demonstrate are arrested, imprisoned, and deported.)
> Of course, a sane, just society would never permit 22 million illegal
> adults to invade it, in the first place!
>
> Like last year, this year we again had law enforcement officers acting
> as welcoming committees, aiding and abetting the criminals, and the
> media acting as cheerleaders, leaving no doubt as to their loyalties.
>
> The traitor media started its advance work the day before, with brain-
> dead propaganda appealing only to members of the Hispanic
> supremacist-cheap labor alliance, and perhaps to dull eight-year-olds.
> Except for one new wrinkle, in "Lazy, Job-Stealing Immigrants?," in
> the Washington Post, British expatriate Sebastian Mallaby stuck to the
> dog-eared script. He calls amnesty "immigration reform." He insists on
> using the euphemisms "immigrants," as if these were legal immigrants,
> and then "migrants," as if these were Americans who had merely moved
> from, say, Appalachia to California in search of a better life, even
> though he is talking about illegals.
>
> Mallaby maintains that illegals are much better behaved than
> Americans. That must be why, if the government does not undertake mass
> deportations of illegals and secure the borders, in 10-20 years, every
> major American city will be controlled by illegal gangs.
>
> Dripping with condescension towards his critics, he asserts that far
> from stealing jobs from Americans, "economists have patiently
> explained for years that there is no finite 'lump of labor' in an
> economy. The presence of migrants causes new jobs to be created." True
> enough. He speaks of factories being created that otherwise would have
> been set up abroad. But why on earth would anyone celebrate the
> opening of criminal enterprises? The owners of such factories are
> engaged in criminal conspiracies to break every labor, immigration,
> and tax law in the book. The factories provide a net negative benefit
> to the economy. And they refuse to employ American workers. The only
> people who benefit from them are the criminals who own them, and the
> criminals who work in them, respectively.
>
> And let us not forget all of the "jobs" created for illegal immigrant
> indentured servants by people who otherwise would be raising their own
> children, walking their own dogs, and mowing their own lawns.
>
> Mallaby observes that "undocumented immigrants are ineligible for
> welfare, food stamps ." but in time-honored "a
> half-truth-is-a-whole-lie" fashion, does not tell the reader that they
> are getting these benefits, the law be damned. Fortunately, the
> average allegedly uneducated, non-Washington Post reader already knows
> that.
>
> Mallaby claims that "the total effect of undocumented workers on
> native-born Americans is roughly zero." This is supposed to console
> the reader? Rather than losing his country for a mess of pottage, the
> average American is losing it for . nothing in return.
>
> But even that's not true. Robert Rector has estimated that, due to the
> costs that illegals and their employers inflict on American taxpayers
> (schools, hospitals, crime, prisons, etc.), each illegal costs
> Americans $1 million over the cost of a lifetime, and that another
> mass amnesty like that sought by the Open Borders Lobby, which
> includes Pres. Bush and Mallaby, among others), which would open up
> programs like the Social Security Administration's supplemental
> security income and social security pensions to present-day illegals,
> would cost us $2.5-3 TRILLION over and above any contribution the
> amnestied "immigrants" would have made to the fisc. (If George Bush
> has his way, tens of millions of illegals will tap into social
> security even without another mass amnesty.)
>
> And that's not counting the additional billions Americans pay every
> year, to protect their children from public schools that illegal
> children have destroyed through violence and by dragging down academic
> standards. American parents have to variously buy overpriced homes in
> the increasingly rare public school districts whose schools have yet
> to be destroyed, or pay exorbitant private school tuition. As
> Elizabeth Warren and her daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, and Steve
> Sailer have reported, such additional expenditures are fueling an
> epidemic of bankruptcy among middle-class families with school-aged
> children.
>
> And of course, another mass amnesty would bring hundreds of millions
> more illegals in the wake of those amnestied.
>
> To my knowledge, the one new wrinkle Mallaby came up with, is the
> claim that immigration restrictionists say that illegals are "lazy."
> I've never heard any restrictionist say that. So, that's a whole lie.
>
> But the children of illegals, who are themselves illegal, do not share
> their parents' work ethic or docility. The children are often lazy,
> are predominantly hateful, and commit crimes at rates far above the
> American statistical norm. Imitating the worst qualities of American
> blacks, they refuse to patiently work their way up the ladder of
> social mobility, and despise everything that America stands for.
> Meanwhile, they demand that everything that law-abiding Americans have
> worked so hard for be taken from them and given to the
> second-generation illegals.
>
> Mallaby, who is also a honcho at the Council on Foreign Relations and
> has a 23-word-long title, doesn't tell the reader of the CFR's agenda
> to dissolve America into a North American Union with Canada and
> Mexico. He tries to inoculate himself from criticism by tarring all
> critics as "demagogues and nativists." (So my title, "demagogue and
> nativist," is only three words long. That hurts!)
>
> Hey, Sebastian, you forgot to add "racists"!
>
> Well, Detroit News columnist Amber Arellano didn't forget to play the
> race card. Also writing on Monday, in "Race Forms Ugly Underbelly of
> Immigration Debate," Arellano puts her anti-white racism front and
> center.
>
> Arellano: "Already I can hear the backlash, and it makes me wonder:
>
> "If today's immigrants were from white European countries, would the
> anti-immigration backlash be so ferocious? [She forgot to say
> "illegal"!]
>
> "Of course not.
>
> "Race and ethnicity make-up the ugly underbelly of the immigration
> debate that no one likes to talks about."
>
> Arellano's condemnation of white American citizens as "racists" and
> abuse of the cliché of an anticipated racist "backlash" is supposed to
> terrify whites, and get them saying, defensively, "But we're not
> racists! Some of our best friends are .," so that they won't dare take
> the offensive, and condemn her for her own racism.
>
> Note that Arellano's photograph depicts a comely woman as white as I
> am.
>
> Arellano has only racial intimidation to offer:
>
> "Instead, anti-immigrant complainers wrap their arguments around
> assimilation and citizenship -- largely nonissues -- when what they're
> really upset about is the fact that today's newcomers are
> overwhelmingly non-European and brown."
>
> Assimilation and citizenship are non-issues? Such nonsense is what
> comes of not being a journalist, but rather a professional "Latina,"
> who was hired and is paid to be racist.
>
> And then the big day arrived. CNN called Tuesday "Immigration Day,"
> and denigrated the citizenship test, comparing it to a "TV quiz show."
> Between 1 and 2 p.m. alone, pretty, lefty CNN airhead Soledad O'Brien
> betrayed her cheerleader status in no less than three ways. She said,
> "You see a day with a half day of school, coincidentally."
>
> That was no "coincidence"; school officials cut the school day short,
> in order to send their propagandized charges out to support the
> criminals, and to protect themselves against charges of criminal
> behavior.
>
> (In spring 2006, public school officials across the country were
> guilty variously of acting as accomplices to trespassing and theft, of
> obstruction of justice, and of contributing to the delinquency of a
> minor, when they illegally led students out of school during school
> hours, and took them to other schools to vandalize property, steal
> state flags, turn the American flag upside down, and hoist the Mexican
> flag on school flagpoles above the Stars and Stripes. To my knowledge,
> not one of the criminal "educators" was reprimanded, let alone fired
> or prosecuted. See the section "Bilingualism and Reconquista" in this
> newly published report.)
>
> O'Brien had an Irishman on camera, who demanded legalization and full
> rights for all illegals - translated into English, that's amnesty.
> (Full disclosure: Like O'Brien, I am part Irish.)
>
> Someone needs to whisper in O'Brien's (and Arellano's) ear that
> opponents of illegals do not give a damn if a few thousand of them are
> Irish. Apparently, she (and Arellano) thinks that if white Americans
> see a white illegal face, they'll have a racial chauvinist epiphany
> and say, "Oh, my God! There are white illegals, too! Let's legalize
> them all! Who cares if it means the legal, economic, and political
> destruction of America! Let's help the white people!"
>
> O'Brien also spoke of countries such as "Honduras and Puerto Rico,"
> saying that last year people tended to see illegal aliens as only
> Mexicans (perhaps because the majority are!), and that this year,
> organizers were seeking to diversify the demonstrators.
>
> Oops! Someone needs to whisper in O'Brien's ear that Puerto Rico is
> not a country, but a part of America. Thus, Puerto Ricans cannot be
> immigrants in America, let alone illegal immigrants, because they are
> all American citizens by birth. (In their case, one actually can speak
> of people "migrating" from the island to the mainland.) Like it says
> in the classic Bernstein-Sondheim song, "Puerto Rico's in America!"
>
> (Media and Olympics officials have for years perpetuated the fiction,
> according to which Puerto Rico is a sovereign nation. Every year
> during baseball's All-Star game, Hispandering sportscaster Tim
> McCarver lists Puerto Rican players as a separate nationality, along
> with real nations like the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Japan and
> South Korea, and Olympics officials have even created a fictional
> "Puerto Rican" team.)
>
> O'Brien tried to give the appearance of balance by interviewing an
> Hispanic woman from an organization of Hispanic Americans opposed to
> amnesty. O'Brien asked the woman if she didn't feel sympathy for
> illegals that have American-born children who are "citizens." The
> woman said, "No."
>
> For those who would argue that in calling for sympathy for criminals,
> O'Brien was playing Devil's advocate, that argument falls flat, since
> it would require that she also play Devil's advocate with
> amnestisiacs, something she never did while I was watching.
>
> While I was out, my wife saw another alleged reporter at CNN, a white
> guy, speak to an illegal in New York who has sired eight illegal
> children during his time 'living in the shadows' here. The illegal
> complained that the law does not permit him to go back to his country,
> to visit his family. Instead of playing Devil's advocate, and pointing
> out that the man chose to break the law and may return home anytime he
> wishes, the Hispandering reporter told the audience that this is a
> case of the law keeping families apart.
>
> Organizers helped out their media sycophants this year, by bringing in
> tons of American flags, large and small.
>
> Back at CNN's Atlanta headquarters, an anchorwoman spoke of "More
> National Guard troops on the border, which might cause more tensions,"
> without explaining why the Guard should "cause" more tensions or why
> she was insinuating that America does not have the right to protect
> her own borders. CNN unveiled its new, pro-criminal slogan:
> "Immigration Nation."
>
> The Chicago Tribune also had ongoing puff coverage, with the requisite
> heart-tugging human interest stories, such as the one provided by
> alleged reporter Sara Olkon of a wheelchair-bound, octogenarian
> Mexican lady.
>
> "11:28 AM: Guadalupe Vazquez, 80, came to Union Park in a wheelchair,
> with help from her son. A U.S. citizen since 1967, the Mexican native
> brought a corn tortilla filled with beans and fried eggs, water and an
> orange. She planned to make a day of it.
>
> "'It's important for me because I am Latina and I want to support my
> brothers and sisters,' Vazquez said in Spanish. 'They are suffering.
> Their families are being separated over paper.'"
>
> Over forty years here, and she still hasn't bothered to learn English?
> How did she ever pass the citizenship test, in the first place? And
> note that she considers foreign criminals, not law-abiding Americans,
> her "brothers and sisters." But even speaking Spanish, she's got the
> talking points down cold. "Paper," indeed.
>
> "[Vazquez] wore a large gold Cross necklace and walking shoes. She
> said she hoped to walk at least part of the march. "More than anything
> I feel it in my heart," she said of her desire to demonstrate for
> immigrants' rights."
>
> That's illegal immigrants' rights, Ms. Olkon.
>
> Olkon also provided a pulpit for Ethiopian taxi driver Derege Abebe,
> 37, in Chicago now for 21 years. "People who work very hard all their
> life -- just because they don't have no paper? They should have a
> chance. They deserve to live and work in peace."
>
> What about Americans' right to live and work in peace, Mr. Abebe?
>
> (I identify people like Sara Olkon as "alleged reporters" based on the
> principle of the presumption of innocence. I am allowing for the
> admittedly unlikely possibility that any one of them will say, "I'm
> not a reporter, I'm really just a propagandist.")
>
> In Los Angeles, some of the demonstrators turned violent, pelting
> policemen with rocks and bottles, but that wasn't the news that a
> CBS/AP joint communiqué reported. "Cop Tactics At Immigration Rally
> Draw Ire; L.A. Police Seen Firing Rubber Bullets Into Crowds That
> Included Children," reported that it was the LAPD that became violent
> and assaulted the rioters, er demonstrators. Under the new
> dispensation, it's not enough to romanticize criminals as
> demonstrating for their "rights"; one must also criminalize the good
> guys. (Note, in this regard, the federal government's habit of
> persecuting Border Patrol agents for doing their jobs.)
>
> Initially, LAPD Chief William Bratton was marching in tune with
> CBS/AP, denouncing his own men, while holding fire from the rioters.
>
> "Police Chief William J. Bratton said Wednesday some of the police
> tactics to clear immigration protesters from a park were
> 'inappropriate,' as numerous news videos showed officers striking
> people with batons and firing rubber bullets into crowds that included
> children."
>
> Bratton was quoted as saying, "Quite frankly, I was disturbed at what
> I saw."
>
> The chief had no words of praise or support for the officers that were
> wounded in the attack. That part didn't disturb him.
>
> Nice touch about the children, CBS/AP. Whoever wrote that would be
> quite comfortable working as a La Raza press spokesman.
>
> The anonymous writer's implication - like that of Chief Bratton - was
> that thugs hiding behind children may do what they will to policemen,
> but the cops may not do anything in response. Is this America or the
> territories in Israel?
>
> And what the hell kind of people take toddlers and infants to a
> criminal demonstration, anyway?
>
> AP reporter Peter Prengaman wrote,
>
> "March organizers had long predicted lower turnouts, blaming
> stepped-up raids, frustration that Congress hasn't passed immigration
> reform and an effort by many groups to shift their focus from street
> mobilizations to citizenship and voter registration drives."
>
> As for the "frustration" factor, that was supposed to explain the
> massive turnout last year. And "voter registration drives" is a code
> phrase for organized voter fraud. Telling the story of voter fraud by
> illegal immigrants is apparently yet another of those jobs that
> Americans don't want to do.
>
> Since the L.A. mini-riot, the media are seeking to turn it into a
> Hispanic version of the Rodney King Hoax. In 1991, the media
> manufactured a case of police brutality against drunken black speeder
> Rodney King, by showing only an edited version of the videotape taken
> of King's confrontation with police that showed them hitting King with
> their batons, while cutting out the earlier part of the tape, in which
> King, after refusing to submit to verbal orders to surrender, and
> getting up after being tasered with 50,000 volts, charged the police
> officers at the scene.
>
> Oddly enough, although even Hispanic amnesty activists admit that the
> police were assaulted, none of the news videos I've been able to find
> show that part of the incident. They show only police using force
> against non-violent bystanders.
>
> Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa alias Tony Villar, who in college was the
> president of the UCLA chapter of the irredentist, racial supremacist
> organization, MEChA, itself a leading light in the Reconquista
> movement, has turned up the heat on the LAPD. After racist Hispanic
> pols responded to Bratton's opportunism by screaming for his scalp,
> Bratton realized that sacrificing his officers will not save his own
> job, and is now defending them.
>
> And just so there was no confusion as where the national loyalties of
> NBC's Houston affiliate lie, their cameraman covering that city's
> demonstration by illegals flew the Mexican flag on his camera.
>
> In a letter by VDARE.com reader Don Stewart, which was published on
> Monday, Stewart asks,
>
> I wonder if the plan to Boycott America also includes not giving birth
> to their 'jackpot' babies, not driving while drunk, not accepting
> welfare payments, not using food stamps, not dealing drugs, not
> murdering, stealing or raping, not attending government schools, not
> buying homes using government financing, not clogging our court
> system, not sending remittances to Mexico, not breaking our laws by
> being here and not insisting that we speak Spanish?
> Stewart's question is, of course, rhetorical.
>
> Americans have become increasingly frustrated at lawless, treasonous
> lawmakers, judges, and chief executives, not to mention their
> accomplices among "legitimate businessmen," "educators," and
> "journalists." As the wish of loyal Americans that the law be enforced
> is ignored, their nation slips away. What must be done?
>
> Clearly, faxes to congressmen are not enough. Massive demonstrations
> are necessary. The demand that Pres. Bush be impeached for his
> attempts to amnesty the illegals is necessary. Non-violent civil
> disobedience is necessary. And Americans are going to have to begin
> exercising their legal right to effect citizens' arrests of illegals.
>
> We will know that we are making progress, if, for instance, on next
> "Immigration Day," millions of Americans confront the criminals, and
> start taking their country back. The Americans will need to break into
> march lines, make citizens' arrests, and force policemen to choose
> their allegiances: To America's laws and citizens, or to foreign
> criminals and their American accomplices.
>
> http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/24881.html#

Excellent post. Outstanding.