May 1, 2008 marks the third anniversary of Immigration Day in the United States. Pro-immigrant groups across the country are conducting peaceful demonstrations to voice their support for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) and to voice their opposition to Family Detention Centers and Racial Profiling. The media and the marchers themselves are busy videoing these peaceful, momentous events. CNN has special iReport coverage as well as live streaming video. While it is well recognized the vast majority of marchers are legal US Citizens marching in support of passage of CIR, ANTI groups have initiated a hate campaign to stir up problems. Alipac.us has posted a number of pages asking their members to "brace themselves.. for unrest". They are encouraging their members to: 1. deluge Congress with phone calls, emails and faxes (started 4-30, continues through 5-2), 2. face off with the marchers, submit their videos, 3. monitor police band radios and conta
ct their local police departments. In other words, they are to do all they can to agitate and confront the marchers and send any "caught on video" displays of anger to their leaders.
ct their local police departments. In other words, they are to do all they can to agitate and confront the marchers and send any "caught on video" displays of anger to their leaders.NumbersUSA has also initiated a strategy and asking all members to deluge Congress:
DEAR FRIENDS, Today, we need to concentrate all of our energies into a 30-second phone message to our Members of Congress. We need a massive outpouring of tens of thousands of these little messages to counteract the pro-amnesty May Day marches that are scheduled all across our nation today. By the time Members of Congress see the marches on TV news this evening, they will know from your phone calls that most voters not only oppose an amnesty but want to start driving the 12 million illegal aliens home by passing the SAVE Act (H.R. 4088). Most of Congress still would prefer to just sidestep the illegal immigration issue this year. Your phone calls will remind them that the voters expect them to act. (they have even provided their members a script of what to say).
The members of Congress should know and understand these are small groups of people attempting to manipulate the telephone-email-fax systems to make it seem as if there are huge numbers of people involved. Instead, it is a few people manipulating the system to gain support for their ANTI agenda!
Posts
34 comments:
dee
why are you not marching? Walk the walk--don't just talk the talk!
AnonT, my, you have become angry of late.
Me and mine openly marched today at our neighborhood church and stood up for what we believe in, my friend. CIR must be passed. Peaceful marches with intelligent dialogue.
"Manipulation of phone, email and faxes to congress"? So if the anti make congress know how they feel in this way it is "manipulation"? You know the pros do the same thing, don't you? There may be some anti's who are repeat callers but you are out of your mind if you think this is the norm to inflate their numbers. I would bet there are just as many repeat callers who are pros.
These people are marching mostly because they want amnesty for illegal aliens and USING the detention centers and non-existant racial profiling to gain sympathy, that's all. The illegals and their sympathizers can all go to hell as far as I am concerned.
thats unbelievable pat, the fact that you condone ppl suffering in detention centers and the racial profiling that goes on, YET just another example of pat showing how racist he and MANY ANTI's are
Pat,
Wrong, wrong, wrong on so many counts.
The ANTIs do have one advantage over the PROs. They have been on the internet longer. They know how to manipulate the system. They have groups like NumbersUSA and alipac that document their strategy and send them scripts and provide free fax service.
anon1, oh knock it off! I don't condone inhumane treatment in a detention center but I do condone humane treatment in a detention center. We have been over and over about the racial profiling BS. The areas where Sheriff Joe is working are predominantly Hispanic, so who would you expect would be caught up in his net....Martians? They aren't stopping anyone unless they have probable cause anyway as in a traffic violation for example. It is called criminal profiling and crime suppression not racial profiling!
I thought you said you don't name call, liar! You just called me a racist. Where is dee to warn you like she has warned myself and liquid before?
Anon1,
You are right.
What Pat doesnt realize is, millions of people are marching and supportive of comprehensive immigration reform.
On the other hand, the ANTI sides are demonizing the whole issue. They are advocating their members get ANGRY videos and send MASS faxes and the anti groups PAY for the faxes and write the scripts for them to use!!
dee, so the anti's are more savy and knowledgable than the pro's. Do you have some kind of point with that? It's like saying "no fair, you are smarter than me and I going to report you to the teacher for that". They are using their knowledge of the internet that is a smart thing to do. Is there some kind of law that says we have to have equal intelligence with our adversaries to fight a fight? Geez!
So the pro's have the NCLR and other groups that are fighting for your side. Again what the hell is your point?
So you pro's march and we send faxes. Two different approaches to achieve our agendas. Again, what the hell is your point? The pro's are demonizing the anti's too.
Pat,
As I said, the ANTIs know how to Manipulate the system. They have their ANTI sheep who follow their scripts, fax by form fax, email by form email and leave messages by form messages.
What is so difficult to understand.
ANTI MANIPULATION!! BY THOSE THAT CRAVE POWER!!
I haven't a clue what you are implying by "manipulation", dee. Pros are marching. Anti's are using faxes, e-mails and letter writing and also protesting. Pros are actually doing likewise. The only difference is that anti's don't do much marching. Who the hells cares anyway? What works, works! Sounds like you are just pissed because our politicians are listening to us and not you. I don't have a clue what you are talking about as far as "power" goes either.
We are going to win, deal with it! You can march your pants off till doomsday, it won't matter.
Pat,
We disagree!
Dee:
See this reference:
http://www.prb.org/Articles/2008/pewprojections.aspx
and:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/729/united-states-population-projections
Just to give you a quote from the above:
"The non-Hispanic white population will increase more slowly than other racial and ethnic groups; whites will become a minority (47%) by 2050."
What's your take on this? Do you admit that the percentage of whites is dropping?
This is the underlying agenda for this May 1st nonsense: the ethnic take-over of the US.
Hran,
I think the Census Bureau has been telling us about our changing ethnicity demographics for quite some time.
When I was in Catholic school in Michigan in 2nd grade, I was a shy, nervous little thing and the only Latino in class. I spoke perfect English but because I was shy and nervous, when I was asked to stand up and read, I stumbled over my words. The kids all laughed thinking I could not speak English and I stood there frozen with giant tears welling up underneath my eyelids. They were too afraid to roll down my cheeks, but they were very hot.
The nun saw my dilemma, came up to me, put her arm around my shoulder and said, "Someday, Dee will make us all proud!" She also told the class, "And you should also know that at the turn of the century, the census bureau tells us hers will be the largest minority."
You didn't even answer hran's question, dee. He asked what is your take on the projected white minority population by 2050. What the hell does your little sob story have to do with it?
Whites will become the minority in their own country mostly because of illegal immigration from Spanish speaking countries to our south. Is this someting to be proud of? We could still have remained a diversified country as far as race goes while still retaining the traditional society and culture of this country if not for illegal immigration from one ethnic group. As I said, does this make your chest swell with pride?
Pat, Weve had this discussion. The census has told us for years we are evolving to a multi cultural society. We already have several majority minority states across the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority-majority_state
Four states are majority-minority states: Hawaii (which has long been such a state, and is the only state that has never had a white majority) and New Mexico, California, and Texas[1] (which more recently have entered the category). In August 2006 the United States Census reported that the percentage of non-Hispanic white residents had fallen below 60 percent in Maryland, Georgia and Nevada.[2] The District of Columbia has long had a majority African American population. All major United States territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa) are majority-minority areas.
Well, it looks like, for the most part, all of the demonstrations were quiet and peaceful. Several of the anti discussion boards were looking for anything to prove otherwise. They failed.
Dee,
You are still skirting the issue. In 1960 the percentages were:
85% Non-Hispanic white.
11% Black.
3.5% Hispanic.
0.6% Asian.
As I have said before the descendants of former black slaves form a traditional American ethnic group.
You bring in edges of "America" such as Hawaii to somehow prove that it is natural for America to have a non-white majority.
Then you bring in "Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa".
That is utterly absurd. These outlying areas do not define America. You're grasping at straws.
The two TRADITIONAL ethnic groups in America, white and black, made up 96% of the population in 1960. That is not your multi-cultural wonderland. It is a nation defined by the white majority and its culture with ONE other significant non-white ethnic group.
Your citation of non-majority white areas, such as southern California is exactly what I am talking about. It is a transformation of the traditional ethnic composition of the US.
My question to you is: Why does America have to passively accept this transformation? Did God command it? No other country in the world is held to this weird commandment.
Santa Rosa, CA had a gang issue, the Norteno's and some other gang blended in with the crowds and then converged into small fights. Other than that, i heard nothing of anything else here in N. CA.
hran's point wasn't about becoming a multi-cultural nation. His point was about it becoming a majority Hispanic nation through illegal immigration. That isn't the same thing and you know it.
He asked you what you think of that happening because of illegal immigraton from mostly one ethnic group. How would Mexico and the rest of Latin America like to become a majority Anglo nation in the same way? You know that answer to that, why don't you just admit it?
In response to the HRAN quote: "The two TRADITIONAL ethnic groups in America, white and black, made up 96% of the population in 1960. "
Please see http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10907&page=303
In pertinent parts, here are parts of pages 303 through 307:
Over the past 200 years there has been tremendous variation in the collection of race and ethnicity data in the census. Table 8.1 lists the racial categories in the census by year from 1850 to 2000
In fact, the race and ethnicity items have rarely remained the same from one census to the next. As new populations have entered the United States, the number of census items related to race, ethnicity, and ancestry has fluctuated. Items on ethnicity and national origin were first included in the census of 1850, as part of an effort to distinguish recent European immigrants from the native-born white population. These items related to nativity, parental birthplace, immigration, citizenship status, language status, and time of arrival in the United States. Although ethnicity questions initially reflected a desire to distinguish among different groups of immigrants with European origins, the saliency of those groups shifted as they were assimilated into an increasingly heterogeneous white racial group.
1960 White Negro American Indian Chinese, Japanese, Filipino Hawaiian, Part Hawaiian —
Racial categories, once introduced, have not remained sacrosanct: Mexican was used only once, in the 1930 census
As the ethnic groups from Europe were assimilated as whites, other ethnic differentiation became increasingly salient. The Hispanic origin question was first introduced in the 1970 census at the behest of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then a domestic policy adviser in the Nixon White House (Farley, 2001). Because production of the census questionnaires had already begun, the question was included on only 5 percent of the 1970 census forms. Later, in 1974, Congress passed Public Law 94-311, which formally required the collection and publication of Hispanic-origin data.
The introduction of the Hispanic-origin question roughly coincided with another fundamental change in the collection of race and ethnicity data in the U.S. census. Prior to the 1960 census, the enumerator determined the racial classification of each person. The transition in the 1960 and 1970 censuses to census designs centered on mailed questionnaires necessitated a corresponding move from enumerator-reporting of race by observation to mainly self-reporting. In 1960, census short forms were delivered by the U.S. Postal Service to residences in areas of the country covering about 82 percent of the population. Recipients were asked to fill out the forms and be prepared to return them to the enumerators. The best estimate is that 60 percent of households had the forms filled out and waiting before the enumerator arrived. If the form was not filled out, or if a household had not received a form, or if a household resided in the remaining areas of the country covering about 18 percent of the population, then race was identified by the enumerator.
anon4 (Jim, you can't hide):
Point? I guess I don't see it. But I see signs of "whiteness studies" in your statement:
"As the ethnic groups from Europe were assimilated as whites ..."
Let's just call this idea what it is: sheer idiocy. The European immigrants did not become white, they were always white. They assimilated and became Americans; they didn't change race.
Whiteness studies is a form of PC sophistry. The subject was invented by liberal ideologues in academia who need to publish and invent new theories in order to get tenure and maintain their academic standing. However, it's hogwash.
The only point I can see here is that there was under-reporting of Hispanics in 1960 since they may have self-classified as white. Well, they could be white. There are people of European or nearly all European ancestry in Latin America. I assume, since Pew includes the category in the 1960 data, they made some effort to determine a valid figure.
But the fact remains that the Hispanic population of the US has exploded since 1960. No amount of post-modern sophistry concerning census categories is going to change that FACT.
See here.
The Hispanic population doubled from 1990 to 2006. The growth shows no sign of abating. The census bureau predicts that in 2050 it will be 4.6 times its population in 1990.
As Patriot points out, this sort of ethnic transformation is not happening in Mexico or other Latin American countries. If it were, there would probably be civil war in those countries. Yet we are just supposed to sit passively and accept it because the PC ideologues tell us to.
Here is an interesting study:
*NOTE its SOURCE: UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center
New Study Shows Distinct Ethnic and Political Identity for Mexican Americans
Is this why you really have the title of "Immigration Talk with a Mexican American"?
Found also at this link with other references.
Mexican American Study Project
Or how about this link.
Study: Mexican Americans still standing on the fringe
Are you going to use the excuse and blame it on our schools as well Dee? Since you are intelligent and hold a decent job, would that then make you an exception to the study? Do you refute the study or do you agree with it?
Is God for Illegal Immigration?
"No, God is not in favor of illegal behavior and dangerous borders. But given a church's spiritual and humanitarian role, it is right and understandable that it speaks out with special force against the miserable conditions of the immigrants whom companies and governments are utilizing for economic gain. This moral voice, however, mustn't be one-sided. Just as every immigrant has a right to be treated with dignity, every government has the right and obligation to regulate immigration to sustainable levels, for the good of its own citizens and its immigrants. Religious leaders should be saying this too, don't you think? Why aren't they? Some are."
Here Dee, this is the way everybody should be thinking.
Hran, I tend to agree with your buddy Jim (Anon4). There has been a tremendous variation in the collection of data since the datagathering began.
Additionally, I disagree with your "European Immigrants = Whiteness". When I used to live in MA and NJ, my ethnicity and culture was more closely aligned to the Italian Americans and Portugese Americans than you are.
Today, there is so much focus about separating out Latinos. We seem to be your WN target (along with other ethnicities you deem non white).
I think the reason your side started tracking back in the 70s was because of people like John Tanton (godfather ANTI) who was so adament that Hispanics and Blacks were not educatable and would grow in numbers to outnumber whites.
Tanton was wrong.
I prove him wrong. So many Latinos like me prove him wrong. So many Blacks like Obama prove him wrong.
Liquid, I agree with much of what Fr Morris said in his article, including what you didnt post:
Our politicians on both sides of the aisle have feigned interest in rectifying our present immigration crisis, while cuddling up to the beneficiaries of cheap labor made possible by porous borders and paralyzed structures.
. wouldn't it be refreshing to hear from a Republican pundit that no love for law or security is ever a valid excuse for treating people like animals, or slaves?
. wouldn't it be nice to hear a Democratic pundit (or priest or pastor) on cable television or talk radio speak about the importance of the respect for law
Dee,
I don't "deem" certain ethnic groups non-white. They deem themselves non-white. As "Jim" pointed out, they self-report that on the census.
" ... adament that Hispanics and Blacks were not educatable and would grow in numbers to outnumber whites."
In the Pew projections I referenced, by 2050 blacks and Hispanics together will be 42% of the population while whites are 47%.
But beyond 2050, why would the Hispanic population level off? There is nothing to stop the continued influx of people from Latin America, especially when there is a large voting block of their ethnic peers in the US. Furthermore, Hispanics have a higher fertility rate.
So yes, whites will be reduced to a minority in their own country. Do you deny this?
hran, and that is what dee advocates. She wants Whites to become the minority in their own country and Hispanics to become the new majority. She doesn't care that this is occuring through illegal immigration either. Whatever it takes to complete the agenda is alright with her.
We all want CIR beginning with the SAVE Act, expeditious immigration decisions, narrower bases for appeals, jail time for repeat offenders, improvement in the rules engagement so our border patrol can do it job, 90% reduction in cross border traffic, no cross border employment, no Mexican children in American schools, etc. That's a start on CIR.
Please do not assume that I am someone named Jim. I do not know who your Jim is. I am not him. I am a 62 year old Vietnam Veteran. I am an American, but I would not object to being called Mexican-American, Latino, Hispanic, Chicano or Spanish. I remember when my parents received the 1970 Census. We all thought that it was quite remarkable that the census takers said that it would be all right to mark the box that said we were white. Since there no other category close to what we thought we were, we did as the census taker stated.
Please also note that all of the words I have in quotes are directly from the book, “The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity.” This is a report from a panel of the National Research Council’s Committee on National Statistics. These are not my words. I checked for where the words "whiteness studies" were mentioned, but there is none. The only reference that is similar is where I quoted the book at page 305: “Although ethnicity questions initially reflected a desire to distinguish among different groups of immigrants with European origins, the saliency of those groups shifted as they were assimilated into an increasingly heterogeneous white racial group.” This is a reference to the melting pot theory where everybody was “assimilated.”
You ask, what is the point? Well, the point is that before 1970, there was NO category for Hispanics. The point is that there were large numbers of us already here, well before 1783, when the first “white” settlers started their westward expansion beyond the Appalachians, and then in 1803 with the Louisiana Purchase, into what is now known as the southwestern USA by 1845. Before that, the Spanish (Hernan Cortes) "discovered" California in 1535, but did not start settling any missions until 1697. And, before that time period, the history of the indigenous people already living there can be traced back some 13,000 years. The point , therefore, is that we were here before there were lines you call borders. For example, look up Yaqui Indians at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaqui
The Yaqui land is described as beginning in the Yaqui River valley in the state of Sonora, Mexico, and stretching throughout the Sonoran Desert region of the state of Arizona in the USA. They also lived in the coastal regions of Sonora and Sinaloa in Mexico.
Wikipedia says that they “are notable for being one of the few Native American groups in the United States with Latino ancestry.” It seems to me that ALL Native American Indians from California to Texas, who speak Spanish, have a Latino ancestry. What is notable to me is that someone drew a line between different tribes, and then said everybody above the line was native to the USA, and those south of the line were Mexicans. The trouble with that line is that it was about 500 miles south of where those who spoke Spanish lived. If you lived in South Dakota, and you had relatives living in North Dakota, and then Canada laid claim to North Dakota, do you think that a country that had been around a few short years could negate 13,000 years of your family history?
In the final analysis, the point I am trying to make, is that Hispanics have been here for much longer than since 1960. Its just that they had not ever been counted separately.
Anon4,
Sorry for saying you were Jim. I just assumed Hran was right.
You posted some excellent data and made a very good point. I agree. In fact, I´ve been saying the same thing for months.
You made an EXCELLENT POINT:
"Hispanics have been here for much longer than since 1960. Its just that they had not ever been counted separately."
Anon4:
OK, I wanted you to be Jim because Jim is so much fun. But never mind.
I understand your point. I did mention that as a significant potential problem with the Pew Research data. However, I assumed that they had tried to make a reasonable estimate. But we would have to look at their methods.
Now, if you claim the census data can't tell us how many Hispanics were historically in the Southwest, then how to you know? Your experience is just one anecdote. That's not statistics.
Dee's argument is to justify the current massive influx of Mexicans and people from further points south by saying there have been some amount (we don't know how many) of Spanish-speaking Mestizo or Native Americans within the current borders of the US.
I maintain that number has been small. In any case the point is moot. We're talking now about the immigration of MILLIONS of Hispanics from ALL PARTS of Mexico and other Latin American countries.
Furthermore, they are spreading out all over the US, well beyond these lands Hispanics claim as their own (through highly dubious reasoning).
See the map in this article:
Article.
A couple of states with the highest influx of Hispanics: MAINE, NEW HAMPSHIRE. Do Hispanics lay claim to those lands as well?
Furthermore, the Spanish who first explored the Southwest were Europeans. So, unless you are a direct descendant of a legal Native American tribe, one that we have a treaty with, etc. then we Europeans have claim.
Hran,
What WN discussion boards do you visit (with your friend Jim)? Would they mind if I visit from time to time? I am just curious about your crowd. They would treat me civilly, right?
WOW, you guys really run a fast blog site! I will try to catch up. I am responding to a comment made back about 5 blogs ago, where Hran provided an article from the Wall Street Journal. It supports 3 comments that I think should be emphasized.
1. The article points out that the main cause for most of the population increase in the Hispanic population is the NUMBER OF BIRTHS. Immigration is NOT the primary reason.
“Hispanic families tend to have more children. The population is also younger on average, so the large number of births isn't balanced out by deaths. Between July 2000 and 2007, there were 8.4 Hispanic births for every death. African-Americans had 2.4 births per death. The ratio for whites was 1.6.
Many of these Hispanic communities are now growing swiftly even without taking immigration into account. "The base population of Hispanics already here is so large that it is virtually impossible for immigration to play as important a role in population growth as it has historically," said Mr. Humphreys of the University of Georgia.”
2. The large number of Hispanics are LEGAL citizens, not illegal immigrants. All the presidential candidates are smart people. They are courting Hispanics aggressively in this campaign and running advertisements in Spanish. They would
certainly know, better that most people, that their target audiences are voters, i.e., U.S. CITIZENS born right here.
“Home-Grown: The bulk of the increase is coming from births, not immigration, an indication that stricter border controls would do little to stem population increases.”
"If you close the borders tomorrow, there is still going to be a large Hispanic increase."
3. The article also points out that Hispanics are spreading out all over the USA, not just in the southwestern states.
Since the majority of the additional Hispanics are here because of birth, then the majority are NOT immigrants of any kind, legal nor illegal. THERE IS NOTHING IMPROPER ABOUT LEGAL CITIZENS MOVING FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER.
The high percent increases for Maine and New Hampshire are incredible, if you only look at the percentages. But, these are two low population states, just over a million in each state. The Hispanic population of Maine is now 15,656. And the Hispanic population of New Hampshire is now 32,927. So, any change will show a large % shift. In order to see the full story, you need to look at the raw numbers. If we use the chart’s highest category of increase (76%) for each of these states, the highest amount that New Hampshire could have added is 14,203 new Hispanics, and the highest amount that Maine could have added is 6,753. When you look at the big picture, that these are state-wide increases for a 7 year period, these changes are NOT so incredible.
Post a Comment