Doug Henwood Talks

[For some reason I sub’d to Ann Coulter’s column. I promise I won’t
forward many more of them, but it’s amazing to me what racist trash
she can get away with and not be ostracized.]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21029

Bush’s America: Roach Motel by Ann Coulter (More by this author) Posted: 06/06/2007

Republicans’ defense of President Bush’s immigration bill is more
enraging than their defense of Harriet Miers. Back then, Bush’s
conservative base was accused of being sexist for opposing an
unqualified woman’s nomination to the highest court in the land. Now
we’re racists for not wanting to grant amnesty to millions of illegal
aliens. I don’t know why conservatives like Linda Chavez have to argue like
liberals by smearing their opponents as racists. Oh wait, now I
remember! Their arguments are as strong as liberals’ arguments
usually are.

Apart from abortion, no subject produces so much disingenuousness as
America’s immigration policy, both legal and illegal. For nearly 50
years, Americans have been intentionally lied to about our
immigration laws.

In 1965, Teddy Kennedy overhauled immigration law with the specific
purpose of effecting a dramatic change in the nation’s demographics.
Bobby Kennedy had civil rights, so Teddy needed something big: He
would preside over a civil rights bill for the entire Third World! My
word, but that man could drink in those days.

With his 1965 immigration act, Kennedy embarked on entirely
transforming American culture for no good reason. (You know how
people always say the same arguments against illegal immigrants today
were once made about the Irish to show how silly those arguments are?
If only the U.S. Senate had had an “Irish Need Not Apply” sign!)

Until that point, immigration law basically took a laissez-faire
approach, with country quotas attempting to replicate the traditional
immigration patterns. Most immigrants to America had historically
come from Great Britain, Germany and Scandinavian countries.
Consequently, immigration quotas roughly reflected that balance, with
smaller numbers of immigrants admitted from other countries.

But in an angry, long-awaited payback to WASPs, Kennedy decided he
was going to radically transform the racial composition of the
country. Instead of taking 15 immigrants from England and three from
China, America would henceforth take three from England and 15 from
China. Payback’s a bitch, Daughters of the American Revolution!

Some of those hardworking immigrants who just want a chance to
succeed were arrested in a plot to blow up JFK Airport last week.

Most immigrants still come from a handful of countries; Kennedy
simply changed which countries those would be. In 2005, according to
the Department of Homeland Security, the overwhelming majority of
immigrants came from only 10 countries, none of which had sent a lot
of immigrants to America for the country’s first 200 years: Mexico
(161,445), India (84,681), China (69,967), the Philippines (60,748),
Cuba (36,261), Vietnam (32,784), the Dominican Republic (27,504),
Korea (26,562), Colombia (25,571) and Ukraine (22,761).

In 1960, whites were 90 percent of the country. The Census Bureau
recently estimated that whites already account for less than two- thirds of the population and will be a minority by 2050. Other
estimates put that day much sooner.

One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate
overlords as the white majority has been. If this sort of drastic
change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans,
it would be called genocide. Yet whites are called racists merely for
mentioning the fact that current immigration law is intentionally
designed to reduce their percentage in the population.

We needed to have “more discussion” about Iraq for nearly two years
before finally invading. When will we be allowed to begin discussion
of a government policy enacted by stealth 40 years ago specifically
intended to decimate one particular ethnic group in our own country?

If liberals think Iraqis are genetically incapable of pulling off
even the most rudimentary form of democracy, why do they believe 50
million Mexicans will magically become good Americans, imbued in the
nation’s history and culture, upon crossing the Rio Grande? Maybe we
should dunk Iraqis in the Rio and see what happens.

And as long as we’re adopting an open borders policy for immigration,
how about opening the borders for emigration? As it stands, anyone
can come in and start plotting terrorist attacks or collecting
government services right away. But the rest of us can never escape
having to pay for it.

You can leave the country, you can renounce your citizenship — but
you still owe taxes for 10 years. The government does not allow us to
stop supporting welfare recipients in America, millions more of whom
it plans to import under Bush’s bill. That’s not a free market –
it’s a roach motel.

If these free-marketeers at The Wall Street Journal want the free
movement of people, how about letting us freely leave after they’ve
wrecked the country?

In Samuel P. Huntington’s book “Who Are We? The Challenges to
America’s National Identity,” he asks: “Would America be the America
it is today if in the 17th and 18th centuries it had been settled not
by British Protestants but by French, Spanish or Portuguese
Catholics? The answer is no. It would not be America; it would be
Quebec, Mexico or Brazil.”

I don’t want to live in Mexico, Quebec or Brazil. But now I guess I
have no choice, since “open borders” means I can never leave.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 6th, 2007 at 5:48 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.