Mickey Kaus recognizes that activists who support the DREAM Act, which has been passed by the House, and which the Senate will vote on any day now, will never support border security, and expect DREAM to be merely one of an unbroken chain of amnesties of Hispanic illegal aliens.
There's your trouble: I had a short Twitter dialogue with Matias Ramos, a pro-DREAM Act activist, and I think it inadvertently got at a submerged nub of the immigration debate [Reformatted—read top to bottom]:RAMOS: @kausmickey I was brought to this country as a kid and grew up here, paid my way through UCLA, please change your mind on #dreamact
KAUS: @ElMati7 Once borders R secure, many things R possible. Enforcement first, DREAM later. But your side doesn't want secure borders #dreamact
RAMOS: @kausmickey I want to bring down Mexican gangs as much as anyone, but your side must recognize throwing money to build a wall won't do it
KAUS: .@ElMati7 It's not just about blocking gangs. It's about preventing another wave of illegal immigrants, gang or non-gang. U know that.
RAMOS: .@kausmickey eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhh. No mames.
"No mames" means something in between "you're kidding" and "Oy," says Google. What it means to me is that Ramos, in good faith, doesn't understand why anyone would want to keep out unauthorized immigrants who are decent human beings and come to work and aren't gang members. It's not that he has counterarguments. He doesn't acknowledge that there's a legitimate argument to counter. After all, he's here. He's a good, law-abiding person. What's the problem? Again, he's not being disingenuous. The dude doesn't see a border. Borders aren't designed to keep out only "bad" immigrants. They are designed to distinguish between those who live here and the rest of the world, good and bad.
There's the problem underlying our legislative impasse on immigration, when you come down to it, no? If you don't acknowledge the national boundary—if, as Greg Gutfeld puts it, you don't "want a border like every other country"—you won't be for any effective "enforcement" measures to keep immigration under control (in order, say, to protect the wages of unskilled workers). And if you don't acknowledge any legitimate arguments for a border, it's only natural to attribute opposition to legalization (or support for a wall) to simple racism. What other explanation could there be?
Those of us in the "enforcement first" camp are often asked when, if ever, we'd admit the borders are secure enough to safely allow for an amnesty. A good question—and a difficult question, because at least one of the preconditions will be hard to pinpoint scientifically. It will be the point at which even activists like Mr. Ramos at least acknowledge that there is a border.
We're a long way from there. Passing the DREAM Act, of course, will move us further away. It will only confirm and reinforce the "no border" worldview. ....
P.S.:—The Power of the Latino Power Meme: Passing DREAM would also seem to confirm the idea of unstoppable Latino political power. Why is that unfortunate? Well, in my most recent diavlog with Bob Wright I don't give a very complete answer when he asks why potential immigrants, now living in Mexico and Central America, etc., might be incentivized to illegally enter the U.S. by an amnesty for which they and their children do not technically qualify. My answer is that they think they'll qualify for the next amnesty. What I didn't say is what provides the basis for this belief that there'll be a next amnesty: growing Latino voting strength, and the hype surrounding it.
[“Latinos Going Rogue!,” by Mickey Kaus, Newsweek, December 3, 2010.]
Kaus doesn’t think the DREAM Act logic all the way through to its belief in an unstoppable, Reconquista takeover, but he’s as honest a Democrat as you’re going to find. And if you tease out some of the implications he leaves on the table, he’s also more honest than just about any Republican.
Kaus quotes the Daily Beast's Bryan Curtis, who ascribes to Reconquistas such as Cong. Luis Gutierrez the plan to run the Hispanic illegal alien amnesty movement like the 1960s’ civil rights movement.
The connection that no one seems to draw is that the 1960s civil rights movement was a movement to take over and destroy America, just as today’s Reconquista movement is.
1 comment:
You never hear the Karl Rove Republicans who support pandering to Hispanics talk about what the Hispanics really want - open borders forever. And they certainly won't discuss the reality that on the whole these Central Americans are parasites, incapable of building and sustaining an advanced nation on their own, who believe that money comes from magic white people and are taught by the left that they have the right to vote it away from them. The Republicans won't tell their white constituents that they're sticking them and their children with permanent dependents.
Post a Comment