I've said for years the concept of Mass Deportation (or as the ANTI's call it, "Amnesty" or "self-repatriation through attrition") is Wrong! Now, Richard Nadler, a Leading Republican Strategist, writing for the very Conservative National Review, makes my point for me! He is standing up to Mark Krikorian, Pat Buchanan, Phyllis Schlafly and other Republican demagogues who have been charging their nativist rhetoric promoting Mass Deportation.Against Mass Deportation - by Richard Nadler, My Summarization:
Richard Nadler is against Mass Deportation. His critics chastise him saying his opposition to Mass Deportation is actually pandering to Latinos and business groups resulting in his abandoning Republican core principles.
Nadler disagrees. Mass Deportation is not a Republican core principle. Rather, the leaders of the Restrictionist Movement (e.g. Pat Buchanan, Schlafly, etc) set out to restructure Republican Core Values to their own extremist views. These leaders experimented with various strategies, including: official English, Fair trade, Nativism, etc. They thought this would be a successful wedge issue. They wanted Working Class Democrats to swing over into either a reformed Republican party or a new “third force." Pat Buchanan had tried this strategy in his earlier Presidential campaigns and it didn't work then. He resurrected it after 9-11. He thought the national-security fears widely shared by all Americans could be fused with anti-immigrant, anti-capitalist, and even anti-war populism. Hispanic “invaders” and their wicked employers might be the bogeymen needed to cement the commitment of the American worker to the conservative nation-state. If talk-show passion and book sales were indicative, the mix was a sure winner. Major groups, notably the Eagle Forum, signed on to the new project, and many others went along for the ride.
The ride was short. Their restrictionist strategy alienated not only Latino voters, but many independent and Progressive voters as well. The sheer radicalism of mass deportation caused an anti-conservative backlash within entire industries, many of them traditionally Republican — farmers, ranchers, non-union contractors, restaurateurs, orchard horticulturalists, hospitality providers, etc. This reaction imploded the Republican party in the Southwest and Florida, damaged it severely in the West, and weakened it everywhere. Nevertheless, sponsors of the mass deportation campaign continue to wage a disinformation campaign (e.g. LIES) to mask the meaning and magnitude of the disaster their project unleashed on the conservative movement.
RESTRICTIONIST LIES:
Restrictionist LIE #1: The deportationist cause (Restrictionism) lost no ground in the 2008 election.
. In the Senate, seven Republicans (eight counting Norm Coleman) who voted on June 28, 2007, to block the Bush administration’s immigration bill either retired or were defeated.
Restrictionist LIE #2: “Attrition through enforcement” is categorically different from “mass deportation.” (I love this one because I say it all the time!)
. Mark Krikorian makes this distinction: Instead of “roundups,” he would reduce the illegal population through “consistent, comprehensive application of the law — something we have never really attempted.”
But that is not what Mark, or any other “enforcement only” enthusiast, advocates. Mark knows full well that the applicable law must be radically changed in order to remove illegals in significant numbers. And he advocates such changes: a mandatory form of data-based employment verification; steep increases in penalties on recalcitrant employers; a vast increase in federal detention capacity; a vast increase in mandatory cooperation between recalcitrant municipal governments and federal authorities; a vast increase in the capacity of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to perform workplace raids; the criminalization of most categories of illegal residence; and the criminalization of whole new categories of harboring and assisting illegals.The basic tools of mass removal are the same, whether one calls the process “deportation” or “attrition.” In either case, a number of forceful actions by government against illegals, their employers, and/or their sympathizers are presumed to induce mass fear among the illegals themselves, and among those who sympathize with them.
But that is not what Mark, or any other “enforcement only” enthusiast, advocates. Mark knows full well that the applicable law must be radically changed in order to remove illegals in significant numbers. And he advocates such changes: a mandatory form of data-based employment verification; steep increases in penalties on recalcitrant employers; a vast increase in federal detention capacity; a vast increase in mandatory cooperation between recalcitrant municipal governments and federal authorities; a vast increase in the capacity of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to perform workplace raids; the criminalization of most categories of illegal residence; and the criminalization of whole new categories of harboring and assisting illegals.The basic tools of mass removal are the same, whether one calls the process “deportation” or “attrition.” In either case, a number of forceful actions by government against illegals, their employers, and/or their sympathizers are presumed to induce mass fear among the illegals themselves, and among those who sympathize with them.
Mark is quite aware that such a strategy would trigger severe economic and social upheaval. As he writes, “If conservatives were in fact supporting the mass roundup and deportation of 11–12 million people, losing the Hispanic vote would be the least of our problems.”He is quite correct. Mass removal of illegals would require, by definition, the termination of 7 million labor agreements between employers and employees. It would throw 6.6 million families containing 14 million individuals into crisis — families that include 4.9 million children and 3.5 million American citizens. It would bankrupt entire rural export industries, and throw hospitality-based urban development into havoc. But Mark wants conservatives to remain blissfully unaware of the revolutionary nature of mass removal. New work-based computer software, he says, will handle everything cleanly. Let’s call it Krikorian 2.0.
Restrictionist LIE #3: Hispanic voting patterns are unaffected by the immigration debate.
. Tom Tancredo makes the bizarre point that the GOP’s share of the Hispanic vote are well within the historical “range.” Kirkorian also continues to downplay the loss of Latino votes and unrelated to the restrictionist activities, calling anyone who refers to the loss as "hawkish immigration views."
. Fact: Between 2004 and 2008, the Pew Hispanic Center found that the percentage of Latinos who believe that the Democratic party “has more concern for Hispanics” than the Republicans rose by 14 percentage points — a total virtually identical to the shift in Latino voter patterns recorded in the Edison-Mitofsky exit polls. Hispanics who are themselves citizens, and whose views on immigration policy are similar to those of other Americans, oppose “enforcement only” candidates because they fear that those candidates’ policies will personally affect them, or a friend, or a family member. In other words, the prospect of mass deportation balkanizes them.
Restrictionist LIE #4: Mass removal of illegals will improve the economy.
. Restrictionists assume demonizing illegal seasonal and low-wage labor — and the employers who employ that labor — Republicans will win the support of working-class Democrats. Mark Krikorian advances the new-age theory that low-wage and “low-skill” work is economically counterproductive in advanced industrial societies.
. Economists and businessmen believe no such thing. The entire white-collar structure of management, distribution, and sales in major export industries such as grain production, cattle ranching, meat processing, orchard horticulture, fisheries, and forestry is dependent on the availability of such labor in the United States.
Restrictionist LIE #5: Renunciation of mass deportation implies a renunciation of conservative principles generally.
. Mass Deportation is NOT a Conservative principle. It is morally detestable, economically insane, and politically suicidal.
. If the Republican party embraces mass deportation, the family disruption involved in that policy’s execution will irremediably tarnish the party’s pro-family image.
. If the Republican party embraces the economics of restricting low-cost and seasonal labor, the ranks of the unemployed will swell by the millions — and the unemployed, needless to say, vote for left-wing Democrats far more consistently than immigrants do.
. If the Republican party refuses to negotiate guest-worker measures simultaneously with border-security measures, it will obstruct needed border reforms imperative to crime control and national security.
In short, mass deportation, an option unthinkable in conservative circles a mere four years ago, undermines every tenet, and every goal, of the conservative agenda.
Posts
31 comments:
I have said one million times that all these Racist Deportationists are Idiots.
And that they are going to fail or do immense damage to the USA
Finally there are intelligent Republicans or Conservatives that realize that fact.
Racist Deportationism in Inhuman, Morally degraded, it is a return to the times of PROGROMS, which meant dispossession, dislodgement, stealing property and killings of Jews ( in Russia and Eastern Europe ) and finally the Barbarization of Germany.
There is a lot of Resentment, Fury, Anger, Hate, Inferiority Complexes, Inadequacies, Hatred.
There are a lot of people with Abused Childhoods, the sons and daughters of dysfunctional families.
The World should not be ruled by these maladjusted misfits and jerks.
Milenials.com
Raciality.com
Vicente Duque
From my perpective Nadler errs by continually using the term "mass deportation." His basic premise is wrong. Realists know that there is no possibility of mass deportations. Moreover, that is not even necessary to achieve Pro-America's more fundamental objectives. If we merely adopt a program of systematic, humane repatriation of those individuals who are superfluous to our labor needs, we will be serving our unemployed citizens as well as our national interest and our national sovereignty.
However, make no mistake about it a very large number could be repatriated in less than a year if that was necessary. This was clearly demonstrated following WW II when 8 million ethnic Germans were repatriated from the Eastern Territories in less than a year in 1945-6. Admittedly, at some cost to the aged and ill, some of whom died enroute to the West because they were allowed to take very little with them in the way of clothing and food.
During his campaign for the presidency, John McCain said disingenuously, “I’m not going to deport the grandmother of a soldier serving in Iraq.” No one had suggested that but there were plenty of others who should have been repatriated because they had displaced American workers by accepting substandard wages with no benefits. Similarly, referring to illegal aliens, he remarked, “They are all God’s children.” And certainly they are, as are all the peoples of the world. Again no one disputed this disingenuous statement but it was totally beside the point. His perfidy on immigration issues lost him some critical votes.
To imply that one cannot be pro-family and in favor of secure borders at the same time is ridiculous on the face of it. The thing that so many overlook is that vigorous and continuous internal enforcement, preferably based on e-verification, is the sine qua non of border security. Otherwise, illegal aliens will quite properly conclude that once they escape the immediate environs of the border, they will be home free. Didn’t something like that happen following the 1986 amnesty? Or perhaps at that time, prospective new illegals simply said to themselves, “In a few years, there will be another amnesty so let’s head Norte.” And they were right as evidenced by the fact that the one million aliens in 1986 has now grown to 12 million. Somehow amnesty doesn’t seem like a winning strategy if one is sincerely interested in secure borders
Clearly, we have to create disincentives against future border violations. Amnesty will have just the opposite effect. An escalating schedule of penalties for employers and expeditious repatriation of illegals who are apprehended are the most important disincentives we can create. So let’s require all employers to use e-verification to identify those who do not have legal work status. Then in the next step, require them to re-advertise the jobs held by the illegals at a living wage with a hiring preference for citizen or permanent resident workers. If an employer can present irrefutable evidence that he has made a good faith effort to hire American workers to no avail, issue green cards to those foreign workers who survive this process, provided: they have a clean police record, can pass a background check and a health exam. Finally, the employer must then provide these green card workers with the same prevailing wage and benefits that he provides to his citizen workers. We will soon see how attractive foreign workers are to the employer if the price is the same.
Nadler in predicting the demise of the Republican Party might well reflect on Mark 8:36, "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?"
In other words, is it reasonable to compromise Republican Party principles to succeed, if the price of success is abandoning those principles or at least this principle. I am a Republican and the principle related to illegal aliens is far more important to me than those related to "gay marriage, slaughtering the unborn, affirmative action, and the Obama stimulus package." I personally would find it easier to vote someone who is a moderate on those issues than I would for a person who abandons what he knows to be in the national interest on immigration reform.
Nadler says, "And the overwhelming majority of American workers in the industries threatened by the “deportation” project are neither Hispanic, nor immigrant, nor low-wage."
But he fails to identify who these phantom workers are if they are not Hispanic, immigrant, or low wage. Who are they? If they are none of these, why are these industries threatened by the deportation of these illegal aliens? Although he does not make it clear, he must be talking about workers somewhere else in the industry chain of suppliers.
I guess he hasn't noticed the aliens creeping up this chain to the extent that sooner or later they will replace the workers in the threatened industries.
It doesn’t take a poll to know that Hispanics have friends and family among the illegals and that they worry about their welfare under any sort of program that would increase repatriations and improve border security. But they, like many politicians, are extremely myopic. Politicians cannot think beyond the next election. If they could, they would see that day in the not too distant future when they will be turned out of office in favor of a Hispanic candidate. They cannot see over the horizon to Mexico Norte.
The Hispanics have a similar problem. They are unable to extrapolate what a lack of enforcement and a lack of border security will mean for them and their descendents in the long term. They fail to see that the more of them there are, the more this country will resemble the homelands they left behind in terms of disease, crime, pestilence, joblessness, corruption, and overcrowding. They, of all people, have a lot to lose by their continual insistence on open borders and amnesty. Shortsightedness is the basic problem. They are blinded by their familial and ethnocentric concerns.
If all those who believe in a rational program to secure our borders buttressed by internal enforcement are racist idiots, what does that make those who ignore the obvious facts about finite natural resources, population, pollution, etc. Aren't they another brand of idiot?
Speaking of disinformation, Nadler’s point is far off the mark. Some change in the governing laws and regulations would facilitate the process, but much could be done within the existing framework. After all an illegal alien is – well – illegal by any definition. Again Nadler is writing in hyperbole. He should be addressing the question of what can be done to create the proper disincentives. The gradual and systematic culling of our workforce need not involve any of the mass deportation nonsense that Nadler consistently refers to. One merely needs to begin the process to create an environment where non-citizens will see that there is no future for them here unless an employer can establish in good faith that his labor needs cannot be met without some of the illegal aliens currently in his employ.
Nadler implies that Conservatives are a bunch of idiots and do not recognize the realities of the 12 million illegals in this country. Indeed, there would have to be very desperate circumstances such as another civil war before real mass deportation would be politically feasible.
Nadler totally overlooks the main factors in the Republican defeat – the economy and two wars. In spite of those major negatives and a totally inept Republican administration that wasted its opportunities when it had control of the White House and the Congress, the election was closer than anyone had reason to expect. That is the most important lesson to be learned from those years. The Democrats seem to be making the same mistake with the new Omnibus Pork Appropriations bill at a time when the public is fed up with profligate spending in evidence in the previous round of pork in the stimulus bill and the bailouts of the miscreants in Freddie Mac, Fanny Mae, the housing market, Detroit, and Wall Street. Without a check and balance in the White House, those who control the Congress are unable to restrain themselves when it comes to earmarks and pork.
If some degree of removal of illegal aliens is a wedge issue, it is not so different from other wedge issues. They all constitute a form of pandering, the kind all politicians specialize in by telling the people what they want to hear. You’d think that Nadler was asleep during the run up to the election when it became clear that the economy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were the major factors in the contest. In spite of those extremely adverse conditions and some adept handling of the campaign by Obama and his advisors, McCain, a not altogether popular candidate picked up 60 million votes. The question is if the incumbent had been a Democrat instead of a Republican, ceteris paribus, would the result have been the same, i.e. would the party in power have been turned out of office?
A judgment seems to be being made here by Nadler that all the Republican losses in the last two Congressional elections were solely the result of the nonsensical idea that voters have no interest in preserving the America we know and love. Ask them how many are in favor of Mexico Norte as the new name for our country. Ask them if they think an ever expanding population due to liberal immigration policies, amnesties, and tax policies are in the national interest? Ask them if they understand that the “limit” of finite natural resources per capita as population increases without bounds is zero? Ask them how far down that road they want to go? Ask the immigrants and illegals if they understand how unfettered population growth will kill the goose that laid the golden egg? Ask them if they think 300 million people will make the job of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution easier? Ask them if they don’t think the America of today is different from the America of the 18th, 19th and early 20th century – when the last major immigration wave took place? Ask them if they think population-driven economic growth is sustainable over the long term? Ask them if they think all of the political parties are peddling myopic snake oil?
Ultima,
Nadler explains it in his point #2 and I strongly agree with him.
"the applicable law must be radically changed in order to remove illegals in significant numbers."
ultima said...
From my perpective Nadler errs by continually using the term "mass deportation."
Ultima,
Nadler is quite clear. The people in the impacted industry/location suffer. For example: for Meat Packing, as we saw in Postville, the impacted were:
. the supervisors
. all other workers
. the managers/CEOs
. the business itself including stockholders
. the town, other local businesses, churches, schools, chamber of commerce, etc.
ultima said..
But he fails to identify who these phantom workers
Ultima,
This is perhaps the most racist statement I have ever read from you. We have 50M American citizens who are Latino today. Our country is the USA. Many of us have ancestors that nation built this country and have been here for centuries. We built this country and made it what it is. We did not leave ANY country behind. Our children and grandchildren will continue to live here and thrive.
The corruption that occurred in our USA over the last 8 years is not the blame of Latinos. The blame falls on Republicans in power who destroyed our economy through loosening of regulation and Madoff style corruption by Big Business and Government.
ultima said...
(Hispanics) fail to see that the more of them there are, the more this country will resemble the homelands they left behind in terms of disease, crime, pestilence, joblessness, corruption, and overcrowding.
Duque wrote, "I have said one million times that all these Racist Deportationists are Idiots.
And that they are going to fail or do immense damage to the USA"
There are a lot of idiots out there. Some are racist or ethnocentric. Some are posters to blogs. Some are just misguided transplants who think they have all the answers and reject out of hand any other point of view.
The damage that will be done to this country will not be done by what you refer to as deportationists in a sort of reverse euphemism; rather the damage will be done by those who ignore the law and take it upon themselves to decide what is right and what is wrong. Without the rule of law, we will no longer be a civilized society. That's where the damage comes in along with many other factors that folks of your ilk have no answers for and refuse to comment on. Are they yet another brand of idiot?
Dee wrote,"Nadler explains it in his point #2 and I strongly agree with him.
"the applicable law must be radically changed in order to remove illegals in significant numbers."
That is exactly my point. Since that is true, "mass deportation" is a misnomer. It has no relevance to the conversation. I am satisfied that full implementation of existing laws and perhaps some changes in the rules of engagement would enable significant numbers to be dealt with. The penalties for employers you have often subscribed to would not be without effect on illegal aliens. If you can't get work, what are you going to do?
Non-racist deportation of those who violate our borders, applied to all illegal aliens without regard to race, color, creed,or sexual preference is what the mainstream advocacy is all about. We often, perhaps inappropriately, use Hispanics as a proxy for all illegal aliens but by now everyone should understand that proxy is intended to apply to all miscreants wherever they come from and that there is no racist intent. That concept seems to be beyond some folks' ability to comprehend. Instead of recognizing that they choose instead to be condescending, rude, negative in manner, egregiously hyperbolic, ad hominem bloggers. It is one thing to disagree regarding immigration and enforcement policy; it is quite another in use invective and name-calling to characterize personally everyone with whom you have policy differences.
Dee wrote, "Nadler is quite clear. The people in the impacted industry/location suffer. For example: for Meat Packing, as we saw in Postville, the impacted were:
. the supervisors
. all other workers
. the managers/CEOs."
Aren't these the very people you rail about when they aren't punished for hiring illegals. If these folks were impacted, I should think you would jumping with glee. They are the ones who are responsible for the negative effects on other parts of the community not the ICE who were doing the job we pay them to do under the law.
Dee wrote, "This is perhaps the most racist statement I have ever read from you. We have 50M American citizens who are Latino today. Our country is the USA. Many of us have ancestors that nation built this country and have been here for centuries. We built this country and made it what it is. We did not leave ANY country behind. Our children and grandchildren will continue to live here and thrive."
As you well know, I am not speaking of those who have been here for centuries or who played any signficant role in building America. I am speaking of those who came illegally say after the Spanish American War and those who left their homelands in Latin America because of the corruption,crime,poverty,joblessness, etc.. If those people were unable to fix their own countries, what does that forecast for ours -- the re-creation of the very conditions they fled their homelands to escape -- only to continue the old ways and eventually condemn the U.S. to a similar fate.
I fail to see the racism in those statements. Your response seems to suggest that you have no substantive arguments and just have to lapse back into the old habit of calling everything in sight that you disagree with -- "racism". I don't get it. For a person as bright as you are, why is that necessary?
Dee wrote, "The corruption that occurred in our USA over the last 8 years is not the blame of Latinos. The blame falls on Republicans in power who destroyed our economy through loosening of regulation and Madoff style corruption by Big Business and Government."
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Now that neolibs and socialists control the White House and the Congress we should be worrying about that and the parallels between the new messiah and another one who appear on the scene in Europe in 1933 or before. See Guess Who.
Corruption is not and never has been unique to the Republican Party. All we can hope for is that it does not reach the epidemic proportions of Latin America, some African nations, and most of the world for that matter.
Corruption includes the buying of Latino votes with a $473,000 appropriation to La Raza in the Omnibus Pork Appropriations bill just signed by Obama with the lame excuse that he will eliminate pork the next time around. This to say nothing about the other political payoffs to unions, ACORN, etc. I believe that is corruption and this is just the beginning. The attempts to develop strategies to inhibit free speech and secret union ballots are more of the same.
i wrote, "They fail to see that the more of them there are, the more this country will resemble the homelands they left behind in terms of disease, crime, pestilence, joblessness, corruption, and overcrowding. They, of all people, have a lot to lose by their continual insistence on open borders and amnesty. Shortsightedness is the basic problem. They are blinded by their familial and ethnocentric concerns."
This intended to refer to all immigrants and illegal aliens who think that the U.S. can support millions of additional people without any impact on the quality of life and standard of living they value for themselves and their descendents. It is intended for all of those who see no connection between the number of people as in China, India or Bangladesh and the miserable life many of them live. It is also intended for those who do not think culture has anything to do with how Latin America,India, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh have arrived at this juncture population-wise.
I am merely imploring them to think before they through their familial and ethnocentric myopia kill the gpose that laid the golden egg. This by the way applies to all of those who find it necessary to have large families -- the Mormons come to mind as one example.
I really believe that if you wish folks to continue to visit your blog you disable moderation as I have on all of my blogs. It wouldn't be so bad if you were a little more even handed but when you permit some of the tripe that Duque continues to post while excluding others whose posts are no more objectionable, that's a sign that you only wish to read views that agree with yours. If that is your wish, there is no point in my continuing to post here. You invited me to post more often but I feel uncomfortable in doing so if you exclude too many others who oppose your point of view.
Dee wrote, "Many of us have ancestors that nation built this country and have been here for centuries. We built this country and made it what it is."
No neither you nor your ancestors built this country. It was well-developed, and fully settled before you made any significant contributions. The best that one can say is that at some point Hispanics began to help build this country and to do more of the work previously done by others. The key word is "help". No single group built this country all by itself although some like the Founding Fathers, the pioneers, etc. played the largest role.
Ultima,
Your comment doesnt make sense. You could apply it to all Europeans who left Europe since 1898. If they couldn't fix their homelands and came here to seek a better life, should they go home too? That would mean most of America would be going back to Europe.
ultima said....As you well know, I am not speaking of those who have been here for centuries or who played any signficant role in building America. I am speaking of those who came illegally say after the Spanish American War and those who left their homelands in Latin America because of the corruption,crime,poverty,joblessness, etc.. If those people were unable to fix their own countries, what does that forecast for ours
Ultima,
Very wrong!
My ancestors were were since the early 1800s. Many Latino families lived between Texas and California since the 1500s. We built this country.
For you to say otherwise is wrong. It was not developed at all. Additionally, you are then discounting any work of any immigrant arriving after 1850. They didn't help build this nation either? Only the Pilgrims and the early settlers built this country? Wrong!
ultima said...
No neither you nor your ancestors built this country. It was well-developed, and fully settled before you made any significant contributions. The best that one can say is that at some point Hispanics began to help build this country and to do more of the work previously done by others.
Dee wrote, "Very wrong!
My ancestors were were since the early 1800s. Many Latino families lived between Texas and California since the 1500s. We built this country."
Our country is not mainly the Southwest, or at least wasn't in the 1800s. Sure there were Mexicans in Texas, New Mexico,Arizona and California. What did they build then that was crucial to the development of our country. What specific achievements both in inportance and number have they been responsible for since? Admittedly there may be some isolated incidents but overall it is a gross overstatement to say, "They built this country." That is an affront to every soldier that died in the Revolutionary, Civil and World Wars. Sure there were a few Hispanics sprinkled here and there, but surely the vast majority were not. I picked 1898 because that is when we acquired the Philipines and Puerto Rico, opening the doors for more Hispanic immigration.
There is no doubt that Hispanics are now contributing a lot of unskilled labor and that some of it is being employed in the "building" industries and infrastructure construction. And I'm sure you can find a few examples of skilled labor contributions but to state that they "built" this country is the grossest form of overstatement one can imagine. The reality is simply a matter of history: a few here and a few there like: Elgego Baca, Juan Seguin,etc. Please feel free to add your list but keep in mind their relative numbers before you make such wild claims.
Perhaps Duque is one of those who built America.
Dee wrote, "For you to say otherwise is wrong. It was not developed at all. Additionally, you are then discounting any work of any immigrant arriving after 1850. They didn't help build this nation either? Only the Pilgrims and the early settlers built this country? Wrong!"
Actually, for you to say otherwise is grossly wrong and what's more you know it. All you have to do is read history to find that out. I notice you have finally condescended to use the the word "help" which I said was the operative word. They did help but to hear you tell it it sounds as if the Founding Fathers, the pioneers and the soldiers in the earlier days had nothing to do with the building and defense of our country. Now that is what is wrong.
Here's what I think historians would agree on: The population of Hispanics in Americahas swelled to 50 million, especially since 1898 when the U.S. acquired the Philliipines and Puerto Rico which facilitated the immigration of Spanish-speakers from those islands. This has meant that since that time Hispanics have played an increasingly important role in American society, business, the professions, science and technology. However, the major population areas and the settlement of the Great Plains were well established before the Hispanics had any significant impact. After the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase, Mexicans in the Southwest largely became second class citizens and were often deprived of their property illegally by greedy anglos. As a result their contributions to the building of America in the period of its greatest growth and development were minimal. Even now their contributions in science, engineering and math as measured by the number of Nobel prizes awards are minor. America was built, not by Hispanics, but the Founders of Northern European stock, the slaves that supported the southern economy, and the imported Chinese laborers who help built the transcontinential railroad. Rarely does one see an Hispanic name in the history text books, not because of some discriminatory plot but because their contributions were in fact minimal in the grand scheme of things. Their names most often appear in sociology texts.
Ultima,
Let us be clear.
The founding fathers escaped from their foundering countries and came to America to achieve the American Dream. They established the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Emma Lazarus' poem clearly states: "Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,The wretched refuse of your teeming shore."
We are a LAND OF IMMIGRANTS! We Immigrants to this land of the Free built our Nation! All of us! Equally! By Design!
Because we arrived in 1700, 1800, 1900 or 2000 makes no difference.
We are Americans! We came here to achieve the American Dream!
We have evolved each century to be where we are today through the contributions of each new group of Immigrants and through each new generation. We are diverse, multi cultural, multi racial and multi ethnic. We are the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. And NO ONE can discount the contributions of any new or old group.
We are America!
God Bless America!
God Bless our President, Barack Obama!
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door
Ultima,
It is kind of sad that you discount the contributions of all from the Phillipines, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Mexico, South America and Central America.
This truly shows your biases.
By your standards, no one who arrived since 1850 made any contributions.
Very Bizarre.
By your standards, we should all go back to the old west of the 1850s. By your standards, we have not progressed since then.
Ultima said...
the Great Plains were well established before the Hispanics had any significant impact. After the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase, Mexicans in the Southwest largely became second class citizens and were often deprived of their property illegally by greedy anglos. As a result their contributions to the building of America in the period of its greatest growth and development were minimal.
Dee wrote, "It is kind of sad that you discount the contributions of all from the Phillipines, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Mexico, South America and Central America."
But I don't I recognize them but put them in perspective which you failed to do.
Dee wrote,"By your standards, we should all go back to the old west of the 1850s. By your standards, we have not progressed since then."
I made no such suggestion. Of course we have progressed since then and the contributions of Hispanics has increased although still limited in terms of high level technical achievements as opposed to manual labor. Now there is nothing wrong with manual labor and without it little would be accomplished in terms of agriculture and construction. And those involved in that kind of work surely contribute to our economy. Again it is a matter of putting things in perspective -- recognizing the greater contributions as well as the lesser contributions.
My questions remain unanswered -- what were the specific achievements of Hispanics since 1850 or 1898? No doubt there are many in terms of providing manual labor but I believe that most of that was done by others up until the Bracero program was initiated because of a shortage of manpower. Unfortunately, that program demonstrated that cheap labor could be obtained rather easily and others no longer needed to bend their backs.
That should be "I do recognize them but put them in perspective."
Post a Comment